4. K. Staff Report, Initial Statement of Reasons. 
California Environmental Protection Agency 

 Air Resources Board

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION 

Release Date: 

May 9, 2008

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION

To be considered by the Air Resources Board at a 

Public Hearing on June 26, 2008, at: 

Byron Sher Auditorium 

Air Resources Board, Cal/EPA Headquarters 

1001 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

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

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

Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION 

Prepared by: 

Stationary Source Division 

Air Resources Board 

Reviewed by: 

Carla D. Takemoto, Manager, Technical Evaluation Section 

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

Judy Yee, Manager, Implementation Section 

Janette M. Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch 

Robert Barham, Ph.D., Assistant Chief, Stationary Source Division 

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

May 9, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

developed by the following Air Resources Board staff: 

Olufemi Olaluwoye (Lead) 

Katherine Akins 

Jeff Austin 

Robert Barrera 

Nicholas Berger 

John Constantino 

Richard Corey, M.B.A 

Deborah Drechsler, Ph.D. 

Barbara Fry 

Steve Giorgi 

Marline Hicks 

Trish Johnson 

Deborah Kerns, Esq. 

Jennifer Kiger 

Marja-Liisa Magnuson 

Reza Mahdavi, Ph.D. 

Nehzat Motallebi, Ph.D. 

Tina Najjar 

Jasmine Nguyen 

Jose Saldana 

Linda Smith, Ph.D. 

Hien Tran, Ph.D. 

Maryana Visina 

Zuzana Vona 

Barbara Weller, Ph.D. 

Evan Wong 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. ES-1

A. Authority to Regulate Consumer Products ..................................................... ES-2

B. Existing Regulations ....................................................................................... ES-3

C. Regulatory Development Process .................................................................. ES-3

D. Emissions ....................................................................................................... ES-4

E. Emission Reduction Mandates ....................................................................... ES-6

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

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

H. Compliance with the Proposed Amendments............................................... ES-16

I. Economic Impacts ........................................................................................ ES-18

J. Environmental Impacts ................................................................................. ES-21

K. Future Plans ................................................................................................. ES-23

L. Recommendation ......................................................................................... ES-23

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

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

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

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

II. Development of Proposed Amendments................................................................. 9

A. Public Process for Developing Proposed Limits ................................................... 9

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

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

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

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

B. GHG Reductions ................................................................................................ 15

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

D. Requirements of AB 32 ...................................................................................... 17

E. Compliance with the Proposed Amendments..................................................... 22

IV. Emissions.............................................................................................................. 26

A. Criteria Pollutants and Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................... 26

B. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006........................................ 34
ii 

C. Importance of Regulating Consumer Products................................................... 37

D. Estimated Emissions from Categories Proposed to be Regulated ..................... 42

V. Proposed Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation ............................ 51

A. Definitions (Section 94508) ................................................................................ 51

B. Standards for Consumer Products (Section 94509) ........................................... 54

C. Exemptions (Section 94510 (h) and (l)).............................................................. 59

D. Administrative Requirements (Section 94512).................................................... 59

E. Reporting Requirements (Section 94513) .......................................................... 59

F. Test Methods (Section 94515)............................................................................ 60

VI. Description of Product Categories......................................................................... 62

A. Categories for which VOC Limits are Proposed ................................................. 62

B. Categories for which a Greenhouse Gas Limit is Proposed ............................. 140

VII. Economic Impacts............................................................................................... 148

A. Introduction....................................................................................................... 148

B. Summary of Findings........................................................................................ 149

C. Economic Impacts Analysis on California Businesses, Consumers, and 

Employment...................................................................................................... 151

D. Analysis of Potential Impacts to California State or Local Agencies................. 158

E. Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness (C.E.) of the Proposed Limits..................... 159

F. Analysis of the Impacts to Raw Materials Cost................................................. 166

G. Analysis of the Combined Impacts on Per-Unit Cost from Recurring and 

Nonrecurring Costs........................................................................................... 170

H. Other Possible Economic Impacts from Proposed Amendments ..................... 173

I. Mitigation of Potential Impacts through Additional Regulatory Flexibility.......... 175

VIII. Environmental Impacts........................................................................................ 179

A. Legal Requirements Applicable to the Analysis................................................ 179

B. Summary of Proposed Amendments................................................................ 180

C. Summary of Impacts on Atmospheric Processes ............................................. 181

D. Other Potential Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 191

E. Analysis of Reasonably Foreseeable Mitigation Measures .............................. 194

F. Risk Assessment for Reduced Exposure to Ozone and TACs ......................... 201

G. Alternative Means of Compliance..................................................................... 202

H. Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 202
iii 

IX. Future and Ongoing Activities ............................................................................. 207

A. Consumer Product Emissions Reduction Commitments in the 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP)................................................................................ 207

B. Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Consumer Products................................... 207

C. Review and Compilation of the 2006 Consumer Products Survey ................... 207

D. Paint and Lacquer Thinner Workplan ............................................................... 208

E. Nail Coatings Workplan .................................................................................... 208

F. Innovative Emission Reduction Strategies ....................................................... 209
iv 

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds Used in .................. 

Consumer Products........................................................................ ES-6

Table ES-2 Proposed New and Modified Definitions....................................... ES-10

Table ES-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective ............ 

Date.............................................................................................. ES-12

Table ES-4 Summary of Complying Products and Complying ................................. 

Marketshares................................................................................ ES-17

Table III-1 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares........ 24

Table IV-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5................. 29

Table IV-2 Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds used in .................. 

Consumer Products............................................................................ 41

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

Date.................................................................................................... 44

Table IV-4 Pressurized Gas Duster ..................................................................... 45

Table V-1 New Definitions Proposed for Addition ............................................... 52

Table V-2 Existing Definitions Proposed for Modification.................................... 53

Table V-3 Proposed VOC Limit, Product Forms, and Effective Dates ................ 55

Table VI-1 Astringent/Toner................................................................................. 63

Table VI-2 Astringent/Toner Proposal.................................................................. 64

Table VI-3 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner................................................................. 67

Table VI-4 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Proposal.................................................. 69

Table VI-5 Dusting Aid ......................................................................................... 72

Table VI-6 Dusting Aid Proposal.......................................................................... 74

Table VI-7 Fabric Protectant ................................................................................ 75

Table VI-8 Fabric Protectant Proposal................................................................. 76

Table VI-9 Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product....................................... 79

Table VI-10 Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product Proposal........................ 82

Table VI-11 Floor Maintenance Product ................................................................ 86

Table VI-12 Floor Maintenance Product Proposal ................................................. 87

Table VI-13 Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax............................................... 89

Table VI-14 Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax Proposal ............................... 90
v 

Table VI-15 Glass Cleaner – aerosol..................................................................... 91

Table VI-16 Glass Cleaner – aerosol Proposal...................................................... 92

Table VI-17 Motor Vehicle Wash ........................................................................... 94

Table Vl-18 Motor Vehicle Wash Proposal ............................................................ 95

Table VI-19 Multi-purpose Lubricant...................................................................... 97

Table VI-20 Multi-purpose Lubricant Proposal..................................................... 100

Table VI-21 Odor Eliminator/Remover ................................................................. 104

Table VI-22 Odor Eliminator/Remover Proposal.................................................. 105

Table VI-23 Penetrant.......................................................................................... 106

Table VI-24 Penetrant Proposal........................................................................... 108

Table VI-25 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less 

fragrance)......................................................................................... 112

Table VI-26 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less 

fragrance) Proposal.......................................................................... 114

Table VI-27 Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) ................................. 119

Table VI-28a Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound ....................... 

(non-aerosol) Subcategory Proposal................................................ 124

Table VI-28b Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) 

Subcategory Proposal ...................................................................... 124

Table VI-29 Spot Remover .................................................................................. 129

Table VI-30 Spot Remover Proposal ................................................................... 131

Table VI-31 Tire or Wheel Cleaner ...................................................................... 135

Table Vl-32 Tire or Wheel Cleaner Proposal ....................................................... 137

Table VI-33 Windshield Water Repellent ............................................................. 138

Table VI-34 Windshield Water Repellent Proposal .............................................. 139

Table VI-35 Pressurized Gas Duster ................................................................... 142

Table VI-36a Pressurized Gas Duster GHG Proposal ........................................... 144

Table VI-36b Pressurized Gas Duster VOC Proposal............................................ 145

Table VII-1 Industries with Businesses Potentially Affected by the Proposed .......... 

Limits................................................................................................ 153

Table VII-2 Estimated Total Impacts to Businesses from Both Annualized 

Nonrecurring and Annual Recurring Costs....................................... 155

Table VII-3 Changes in Return on Owner’s Equity (ROEs) for Typical .................... 

Businesses in Affected Industries..................................................... 156

Table VII-4 California Employment and Payroll in Affected Industries ................ 159
vi 

Table VII-5 Estimated Total Nonrecurring Fixed Costs to Comply with .................... 

Proposed Limits................................................................................ 165

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

Regulations/Measures...................................................................... 166

Table VII-7 Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost Per Unit .......................... 168

Table VII-8 Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impacts for the Proposed .............. 

Limits and Other ARB Consumer Product Regulations ......................... 

(unadjusted dollars).......................................................................... 170

Table VII-9 Estimated Per-Unit Cost Increases from Both Annualized 

Nonrecurring and Annual Recurring Costs....................................... 174

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

Date.................................................................................................. 183

Table VIII-2 Pollutant-Specific Health Effects Values Used for Determining 

Potential Health Impacts................................................................... 195
vii 

LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

OZONE............................................................................................... 30

Figure IV-2 South Coast Air Basin Ozone Trend................................................... 31

Figure IV-3 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Ozone Trend........................................ 32

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

PM2.5................................................................................................. 33

Figure IV-5 Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends ....................................... 39
viii 

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Technical Support Document 

Appendix B: Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Emissions from 

Consumer Products 

Appendix C: Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

Appendix D: Summary of Ingredient Reformulation Costs 

Appendix E: Acronyms Used in This Report 
State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the 

California Consumer Products Regulation 

Executive Summary 

Executive Summary - 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

proposing amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation that are designed to 

reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) and air toxic emissions. The proposed 

amendments would also reduce the global warming potential (GWP) of greenhouse gas 

(GHG) compounds used in a specific product category. The regulation is codified in title 

17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94507-94517. The proposed amendments 

to reduce VOC emissions would partially fulfill the consumer products reduction 

commitment contained in the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan (Strategy) to meet the federal ozone standard. The proposed amendment to 

reduce the use of compounds with high GWP is designed in accordance with the 

Discrete Early Action Measure requirements as set forth in the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). 

 The proposed amendments would set new VOC limits for multiple product 

categories. When fully implemented, about 5.8 tons per day VOC emission reduction 

would be achieved. The proposed amendments would also set the first GWP limit for 

consumer products. Reductions in the use of compounds with high GWP is equivalent 

to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 0.20 million metric tons (MMT CO2e) per year. 

Air toxics emissions would be reduced by about 0.2 tons per day by prohibiting the use 

of certain chlorinated toxic air contaminants (TAC) in seven categories. 

 As proposed, other amendments would exempt a compound from the definition 

of VOC, and language modifications would clarify and improve existing regulatory 

provisions. 

 In developing the proposal, staff evaluated the economic and environmental 

impacts. Staff found that the proposed amendments should result in an overall 

environmental benefit in that exposure to ground-level ozone and TACs would be 

reduced. Reducing the use of compounds with high GWP would have a beneficial 

impact on climate change. No significant adverse environmental or economic impacts 

were identified. 

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

Document, is the Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking required by the 

California Administrative Procedures Act. Appendix B contains the regulation with the 

proposed changes shown in underline and strikeout form. 

 Among other things, this Executive Summary, provides a description of the staff’s 

proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation, and explains the 

rationale for the proposed changes. In accordance with Government Code 

section 11346.2(a)(1), Chapter V of the Technical Support Document (Appendix A) 

provides a “plain English” summary of the proposal in more detail. 

 
Executive Summary - 2 

A. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CONSUMER PRODUCTS

 Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and 

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

personal care products; lawn and garden products; disinfectants; automotive specialty 

products; and aerosol paints. 

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

products to control VOCs and GHGs. Section 41712 specifies requirements to reduce 

VOC emissions as a ground-level ozone control strategy. Section 38500 et seq., 

establishes authority to reduce the impacts of GHGs used in consumer products to slow 

climate change. 

1. Health and Safety Code section 41712 

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

the California Health and Safety Code. Section 41712, along with subsequent 

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

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

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

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

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

the earliest practicable date. 

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

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

standards; and the regulations are commercially and technologically feasible. The Act 

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

recommendations from health professionals be considered when developing VOC 

control measures for health benefit products. The intent of section 41712 is primarily to 

reduce ground-level ozone concentrations. 

2. Health and Safety Code section 38500 et seq.

 In 2006, AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was 

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

emissions in California. Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 38500, 

contains the provisions. AB 32 requires ARB to develop regulations and consider 

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

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

Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 calls for an additional GHG reduction of 

80 percent by 2050. 

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

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

as regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions that become enforceable by 
Executive Summary - 3 

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

products has been designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure. 

B. EXISTING REGULATIONS 

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

legislative mandate pertaining to the regulation of consumer products. Three 

regulations have been adopted that affect 115 consumer product categories by setting 

150 VOC limits. These limits, when fully effective, will have resulted in reducing 

emissions by about 200 tons per day, an overall 44 percent reduction in VOC 

emissions. We have also reduced exposure to TACs. Emissions of TACs have been 

reduced by 13 tons per day by prohibiting use of chlorinated compounds in 

63 categories. In addition, two voluntary regulations, the Alternative Control Plan and 

the Hairspray Credit Program have been adopted to provide compliance flexibility to 

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

Regulations, sections 94500 to 94575. 

C. REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

 In order to involve the public, the Consumer Products Regulation Workgroup 

(CPRWG), was established in 2004. Participation in the CPRWG was open to any 

member of the public. The CPRWG participated in the development of the 

2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Survey), which serves as the 

basis for this proposal. The CPRWG was instrumental in the development of the 2004 

and 2006 amendments, as well as these proposed amendments. Consumer product 

manufacturers, chemical producers, marketers, trade associations, environmental 

groups, air districts, and various other stakeholders, have all actively participated. 

 Further outreach, beyond the CPRWG, was conducted to identify and involve 

stakeholders in the development of the Discrete Early Action Measure for GHG 

reductions. For example, in February 2008, ARB conducted a survey for the 

Pressurized Gas Duster category to update sales and formulation data for the 

2007 calendar year (ARB, 2008c). 

The categories proposed for regulation in this rulemaking were deferred from 

consideration as part of the 2006 rulemaking. During that rulemaking, numerous issues 

were raised that required additional evaluation and analysis in these categories. In 

addition to the outreach for the 2006 rulemaking, where proposals for these categories 

were initially discussed, a public CPRWG meeting and a public workshop were 

conducted on August 29, 2007 and March 5, 2008, respectively. Prior to meetings, staff 

posted materials for review and comment to the CPRWG activity website. 
Executive Summary - 4 

D. EMISSIONS 

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

the cumulative use of these products by over 37 million Californians results in significant 

emissions (CA DOF, 2007). 

 1. VOC Emissions 

Consumer products are a significant source of VOC emissions in California and 

contribute to the formation of both ground-level ozone and particulate matter pollution. 

This section, however, focuses on reducing emissions from consumer products as a 

ground-level ozone control strategy. As evidence of the magnitude of consumer 

product VOC emissions, it is estimated that in 2010 consumer products emissions will 

be approximately 243 tons per day, or about 12 percent of the overall VOC inventory. 

In this same year, consumer product emissions will comprise about 18 and 7 percent of 

VOC emissions in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), respectively. Without 

further actions, consumer product emissions are expected to grow to approximately 

270 tons per day in 2020, representing 14 percent of statewide VOC emissions 

(ARB, 2007h). 

 As control measures for other VOC sources (i.e. on-road motor vehicles) become 

effective, consumer product emissions become more important in the SCAQMD. In 

fact, it is estimated that emissions from consumer products will be the number one 

source of VOC emissions in the SCAQMD in 2020. While the ozone forming potential 

of consumer product emissions is less than some other source categories (for e.g., 

mobile sources), clearly, further reductions in VOC emissions from consumer products 

and other VOC sources are needed, if ozone attainment is to be achieved. 

Despite these projections, ARB’s consumer products program is a success story. 

Since 1989, regulations adopted by the ARB, and subsequent amendments, have 

significantly reduced VOC emissions from consumer products. Absent these 

regulations today, consumer product emissions would likely be over 440 tons per day. 

Figure ES-1 shows that statewide consumer product VOC emissions will have been 

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

without further actions population growth would likely reverse the trend. 
Executive Summary - 5 

230

260

290

320

350

380

410

440

470

500

530

560

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Year

Emissions (tpd)

Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th an d e m ission red uctions )

Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th o nly )

200 tpd

*Includes 2006 CP Regulation Amendments Data

Figure ES-1 

Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends 

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

Emissions for 1990 to 2006 are taken from the ARB Forecasted Emissions by Summary 

Category, 2007 Almanac (ARB, 2007h). Emissions are then grown in proportion to 

population increase. Population growth is in accordance with estimates in the California 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found 

in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). For categories regulated in 

the 2006 Consumer Products Amendments, emission values from the 2003 Survey and 

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

reflected in the Figure. 

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Greenhouse gas emissions from consumer products are small relative to other 

sources, such as vehicle exhaust. However, the magnitude of the climate change 

problem justifies reductions from both large and small sources, wherever such measures 

are feasible and cost-effective. While staff is still in the process of developing the 

consumer product GHG inventory, we do know from past surveys that several 

compounds with high GWP are used in consumer products. 

Consumer products use various GHGs, mostly as propellants. To a much lesser 

degree, several solvents with fairly high GWPs are used. The propellants are typically 

low photochemically reactive compounds that are exempt VOCs. They have been used 

as a reformulation strategy to reduce VOC content. Compounds of interest include 
Executive Summary - 6 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluoroethers 

(HFEs), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxide (N2O). However, the propellants 

HFC-134a and HFC-152a are the predominate GHGs used in consumer products today. 

Compressed CO2 is also used as a propellant, but the GHG emissions are negligible 

compared to the emissions from HFCs. Table ES-1 shows some examples of GHGs 

that are used in consumer products. 

Table ES-1 

Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds Used in Consumer Products 

Compound SAR GWP* FAR GWP** 

CO2 1 1 

HFE-7200 N/A 59 

HFC-152a 140 124 

HCFC-141b N/A 725 

HFC-134a 1300 1430 

HFC-43 10mee 1300 1640 

* 100 year timeframe, IPCC Second Assessment Report value 

** 100 year timeframe, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report value 

Using the values in Table ES-1, we see that the GWP for HFC-134a is 

approximately ten times greater than the GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than 

CO2. Reductions in the use of HFC-134a are being pursued in this rulemaking. 

 

 GHG emissions data are available from a 2003 Survey of consumer products. 

Staff has evaluated these data for possible GHG reductions and development of new 

regulations for this rulemaking. In the 2006 Survey, we collected information from 

manufacturers of consumer products to determine the usage of compounds with high 

GWP in additional categories of consumer products. Staff will use the 2006 Survey 

data to develop the GHG inventory for consumer products, and evaluate the data for 

product categories where compounds with high GWP are used to determine if there is a 

potential to reduce their use without increasing the use of VOCs. 

E. EMISSION REDUCTION MANDATES 

Reduction of VOCs and GHGs are necessary to attain California’s ambient air 

quality standards and climate change reduction goals, respectively. The role of 

consumer products to meet these mandates is described in this section. 

 1. Consumer Products and California’s State Implementation Plan 

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

from consumer products was set forth. To meet the federal standards, in 1994 emission 

reductions from consumer products became part of the California State Implementation 

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

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

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

emissions to meet the one-hour federal ozone standard. 
Executive Summary - 7 

In response to these mandates, three regulations with 150 VOC limits for 

115 categories of consumer products (including antiperspirants and deodorants and 

36 aerosol coatings categories) have been established to date. The adopted limits will 

achieve a 44 percent reduction in overall VOC emissions from consumer products by 

the year 2010. 

The 2003 SIP was withdrawn, however, the remaining consumer product 

emission reduction commitment was incorporated into the Strategy, which includes 

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

averaged over eight-hours. In the Strategy, ARB has committed to an additional 30 to 

40 tons per day VOC reduction from consumer products by 2014. Under the 

commitment, rulemakings are to occur in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe with reductions 

occurring between 2010 to 2012. Further rulemakings between 2010 and 2012, with 

implementation dates in the 2012 to 2014 timeframe, are to complete the emission 

reduction commitment. 

The Strategy also acknowledges that VOC reductions from consumer products 

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

commitment to explore innovative reduction strategies in the longer term. These 

measures would include investigating emission reduction opportunities through 

reactivity-based standards and alternative market-based mechanisms. If these 

mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reductions from the consumer 

products source category, then other approaches would be evaluated. Some of these 

approaches include the purchase of VOC credits; and funding of special projects to 

reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from pollution sources outside of the 

consumer products industry. 

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are intended to partially fulfill the 

Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from consumer products. 

2. Discrete Early Action Measures and Scoping Plan 

Among other things, AB 32 requires ARB to design and adopt an overall Scoping 

Plan, by January 1, 2009, that identifies how GHG emissions can be reduced back to 

1990 levels. AB 32 additionally recognizes that immediate progress in reducing GHG 

emissions can and should be made. Accordingly, AB 32 required ARB to identify a list 

of “Discrete Early Action GHG Reduction Measures” by June 30, 2007. Discrete Early 

Actions are Board adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions that become legally 

effective by January 1, 2010. These measures are to become part of the State’s 

comprehensive strategy for achieving GHG reductions. Beyond the requirements of 

AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 calls for an additional GHG 

reduction of 80 percent by 2050. 

 In June 2007, ARB approved a list of early action GHG reduction measures. 

Additions to the list were approved by the Board at its October 2007 hearing. A subset 
Executive Summary - 8 

of these early action measures was identified as “Discrete Early Action Measures.” One 

of the approved Discrete Early Action Measures designated in the Early Action Report 

calls for the reduction in use of high GWP GHGs in consumer products. The measure 

was estimated to achieve an emissions reduction of 0.25 MMT CO2e per year from 

consumer products (ARB, 2007b). 

 The objective of the Consumer Products Discrete Early Action Measure is to 

reduce the use of compounds with high GWP when alternatives are available. To 

achieve reductions of GHG emissions, consumer product formulations would need to be 

changed to reduce or eliminate the use of compounds with high GWPs. The reduction 

in use of compounds with high GWP in consumer products is a long-term effort. We are 

continuing to develop an emission inventory that will be used to evaluate reduction 

opportunities. 

 We are proposing a GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster products. If adopted 

by ARB, this will be the first GWP limit in place for consumer products. In future 

rulemakings, staff anticipates developing proposals for reductions of GHGs from other 

consumer product categories. 

F. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORIES PROPOSED TO BE 

REGULATED 

 The 2003 Survey serves as the basis for the proposed amendments to reduce 

VOC emissions. The 2003 Survey provided staff with detailed information on the 

formulations of consumer products, including complete speciation of VOCs, low vapor 

pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) solvents, and key exempt ingredients. Total volumes of 

inorganic and other compounds were also provided. Information on sales, product form, 

customer types, and company size and economics were also included. For this 

rulemaking, the 2008 emissions and reduction estimates for 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

and 2015 were grown from 2003 sales data and the state Department of Finance’s 

population estimates. Annual population growth factors were calculated using the 2008 

State population figures and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s 

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

Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). We estimate that the categories proposed for VOC 

regulation contribute about 22.6 tons per day of 2008 VOC emissions. 

The GHG emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters are estimated to be 

0.37 MMT CO2e per year. This estimate is based on the results of the Pressurized Gas 

Duster Survey update collected in February, 2008 (ARB, 2008a). 

G. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

 

 First of all, to reflect that the “Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compounds 

from Consumer Products” now contains requirements for both VOC and GHG 

reductions, we are proposing to rename the regulation. As proposed, the regulation 

would be re-titled “Regulation to Reduce Emissions from Consumer Products.” 
Executive Summary - 9 

 Amendments are being proposed to six sections in the Consumer Products 

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

Products,” section 94510 “Exemptions,” section 94512 "Administrative Requirements,” 

section 94513 “Reporting Requirements,” and section 94515 “Test Methods.” In 

addition to the amendments described below, a number of non-substantive grammatical 

and organizational changes are also proposed. Chapter V of the Technical Support 

Document contains more complete information on each proposal. 

1. Definitions (Section 94508) 

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

Products Regulation which are not self-explanatory. As shown in Table ES-2, the 

proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation include new or revised 

definitions. These definitions are necessary to define categories proposed for VOC 

limits or greenhouse gas limits, or to improve enforceability of the Consumer Products 

Regulation. Note that a number of categories have been previously regulated and we 

are now proposing lower VOC limits. Several definitions require further clarification. 

Global Warming Potential and Global Warming Potential Value: We are 

proposing new definitions for Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global Warming 

Potential Value (GWP Value). These definitions are necessary to implement our 

proposal to reduce the use of compounds with high GWPs in Pressurized Gas Dusters. 

We are using the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC). GWP provides a measure of a compound’s impact on global warming 

compared to CO2. The GWP Value definition specifies that the IPCC Second 

Assessment Report (SAR) would be used to determine GWP values (IPCC, 1996). To 

enforce the proposal for reducing the use of compounds with high GWP, the definition 

would further specify that, if the SAR does not contain a GWP value for a specific 

chemical or compound, then the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) GWP value for 

that chemical or compound will be used. If there is no GWP value listed for a chemical 

or compound in the SAR or the FAR, then the GWP value will be assumed to be equal 

to the applicable GWP limit (i.e. the GWP limit established for specific consumer 

product categories), for the purpose of determining compliance with any GWP limit. 

 Pressurized Gas Duster Definition: Currently, the definition for Pressurized Gas 

Duster describes a product used to remove dust on surfaces that cannot be cleaned 

with a solvent. In developing the proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters, staff became 

aware that there are certain niche uses of these products where flammability is a 
Executive Summary-10 

Table ES-2 

Proposed New and Modified Definitions

Previously Unregulated Categories with New VOC Limits

Astringent/Toner Odor Remover/Eliminator 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer 

Product 

Pressurized Gas Duster 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner 

Floor Maintenance Product Windshield Water Repellent 

Motor Vehicle Wash 

Previously Regulated Category with Lower Limit 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner 

Dusting Aid 

Personal Fragrance Product (products 

 with 20% or less Fragrance) 

Fabric Protectant 

Floor Polish or Wax --Wood Floor Wax 

Sealant or Caulking Compound-- 

 Chemically Curing 

Glass Cleaner 

Multi-Purpose Lubricant 

Sealant or Caulking Compound-- 

 Non-chemically Curing 

 Penetrant Spot Remover 

Other New or Modified Definitions 

Existing Product Lubricant 

Disinfectant Metal Polish/Cleanser 

Fabric Refresher Not for Retail Sale 

Global Warming Potential Volatile Organic Compound 

Global Warming Potential Value 

concern. These products rely on a non-flammable propellant with a high GWP. At the 

present time, no technology exists that would maintain this non-flammable aspect if 

these products were mandated to comply with our proposed GWP limit for this category. 

Therefore, we are proposing a modification to the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster 

to exclude products used on energized equipment as long as the Principal Display 

Panel specifies “Energized Equipment use only.” As proposed, products so-labeled 

would neither be subject to the GWP limit nor the VOC limit. 

 Not for Retail Sale: The current regulation includes several provisions where an 

exemption from compliance is provided if certain criteria are met. For example, General 

Purpose Degreasers and Lubricants are not subject to VOC limits if they are sold 

exclusively to establishments which manufacture or construct good or commodities and 

are labeled “not for retail sale.” Staff has received numerous inquiries as to what “not 

for retail sale” means. Therefore, staff is proposing to define this term. As proposed, 

Not for Retail Sale means that a product is sold exclusively to establishments that 

manufacture or construct goods or commodities, or are products sold to holders of 

commercial licenses (e.g. an electrician). For purposes of the regulation, “Not for Retail 

Sale” means the product is not sold in retail outlets or wholesale locations where 

household consumers may purchase it. 
Executive Summary -11 

VOC Definition: We are proposing to modify the definition of VOC to exclude 

hydrofluoroether (HFE) 7200. HFE 7200 is a solvent used in precision cleaning. In a 

report titled “Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals” 

ARB staff determined that use of HFE 7200 has negligible impacts on ground-level 

ozone formation. It also has a fairly low GWP. No other adverse impacts were 

identified (ARB, 2008b). Therefore, to provide an additional reformulation option that 

could result in further VOC reductions, staff believes the exemption is appropriate.

2. Proposed Amendments to Section 94509 

 

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

Consumer Products Regulation by specifying VOC limits for the product categories 

shown in Table ES-3. Some of the categories are previously unregulated and others 

are currently regulated. For the currently regulated categories we are proposing lower 

VOC limits. The new or modified VOC limits would become effective between 

December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2015, as indicated in Table ES-3. An additional 

lower limit for Multi-purpose Lubricant is proposed to become effective on 

December 31, 2015. All of these changes would be reflected in the Table of Standards 

in section 94509(a). Note that in some cases different VOC limits are proposed based 

on product form. 

 Extended effective dates are proposed for categories where the proposed limits, 

while feasible, will require additional resources to develop complying products. This is 

especially true for the technology forcing second tier VOC limit proposed for the Multipurpose Lubricant category. Table ES-3 also shows that statewide VOC emissions 

would be reduced by about 5.8 tons per day when all limits are fully effective. These 

reductions would partially fulfill the consumer products element in the Strategy. Several 

VOC limit proposals in Table ES-3 warrant further explanation as provided below. 

 a. Proposal for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product: Fabric SoftenerSingle Use Dryer Product is a previously unregulated category. As shown 

in Table ES-3, a grams of VOC per use limit is being proposed for these 

products, rather than a percent by weight limit. Our rationale for this 

proposal is described later in this subsection. 

 b. Proposal for Personal Fragrance Products: Staff is proposing that any 

Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance be 

required to meet the existing January 1, 1999, limit of 75 percent by 

weight VOC limit. This would remove the so called “Grandfather” clause 

currently contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). Our proposal is 

further described in subsection 3 of this Executive Summary. 
Executive Summary -12 

Table ES-3 

Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date

Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit

(percent by 

weight)

2008 VOC 

Emissions*

(tons per day)

Reductions 

at Effective 

Date 

(tons per day)

Astringent / Toner 

(non-FDA regulated) a All 35 0.62 0.11 

Aerosol 5 0.32 0.07 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleanera

Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07 

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 

Dusting Aida

Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00 

Fabric Protectanta Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08 

Fabric Softener – 

 Single Use Dryer Producta All 0.05 grams 

per use** 0.52 0.21 

Floor Maintenance Producta All 1 0.11 0.07 

Floor Polish or Wax – 

 Wood Floor Waxa All 70 0.06 0.01 

Glass Cleanerb Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03 

Motor Vehicle Washa All 0.2 0.38 0.14 

25c

Multi-purpose Lubricant – 4.08 2.04 

 excluding solid & semisolidc/e All 

10e

 1.27 

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00 

Odor Remover/Eliminatora

Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03 

Penetrantc All 25 0.40 0.15 

Personal Fragrance Product 

(products with 20% or less fragrance)d All 75+

 10.89 0.41 

Pressurized Gas Dustera All 1 0 0 

Chemically Curingb Nonaerosol Sealant or 3 1.9 0.22 

Caulking 

Compound Non-Chemically 

Curinga

Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12 

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 

Spot Removera

Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05 

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00 

Tire or Wheel Cleanera

Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06 

Windshield Water Repellenta All 75 0.23 0.04 

Total Emissions 2008 22.61 tons per day

Total VOC Reductions 2015 5.76 tons per day 

 * Survey emissions adjusted for market coverage, Effective Dates: 

 and grown to the 2008 calendar year a: 12/31/2010 

 ** Grams per use limit provides emissions reductions equivalent b: 12/31/2012 

 to 2.6% VOC limit, including fragrance c: 12/31/2013 

 *** Omitted to protect confidentiality d: 12/31/2014 

 + Remove “Grandfather” clauses e: 12/31/2015 
Executive Summary -13 

 c. Proposal for Furniture Maintenance Product: Although not shown in 

Table ES-3, staff is proposing to reinstate the long-standing exemption for 

solid and paste forms of Furniture Maintenance Products. This exemption 

was inadvertently omitted during the 2006 rulemaking. The exemption 

clarifies that solid and paste forms of this type of product are not subject to 

the current VOC limit of three percent by weight. 

Proposed Requirement for Dilutable Products: Currently, the VOC limits for 

products, that are to be diluted prior to use, are applied after the minimum 

recommended dilution. Staff has become aware of products packaged in pump spray 

containers that appear to be marketed as “ready-to-use” products, but are designed to 

be diluted by the user prior to use. Staff believes this approach to packaging may be 

diminishing anticipated VOC reductions, and is a potential circumvention of the intent of 

the regulation. Therefore, staff proposes a modification to section 94509(b)(4), 

clarifying that products sold in pump spray containers are required to meet the specified 

VOC limit prior to any minimum recommended dilution. 

 Date Coding Requirements: Subsections 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p) specify 

prohibitions on use of certain chlorinated compounds in specified categories. We are 

proposing to clarify the date coding requirement that must be met to qualify as a “sellthrough” product. As proposed, the product would need to comply with the product 

dating requirements in section 94512(b). 

Prohibition of Toxics from Specific Categories: To mitigate a potential adverse 

environmental impact, staff is proposing a new subsection (q) within section 94509 to 

prohibit the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in 

“Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner,” “Fabric Protectant,” “Multi-Purpose Lubricant,” “Penetrant,” 

“Sealant or Caulking Compound,” and “Spot Remover.” 

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

identify and mitigate any possible adverse environmental impacts of regulatory 

actions. We believe that it is unlikely, but possible, that manufacturers may, in 

response to new VOC limits, choose to reformulate with chlorinated solvents that are 

TACs. Therefore, because there are many products that comply with the proposed 

limits, without the use of these chlorinated solvents, prohibiting their use is appropriate 

to protect the public from exposure to these TACs. 

In evaluating the use of these TACs, staff has become aware that certain 

Penetrants are designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the 

products must be non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide this nonflammable aspect, the chlorinated solvents are used. At the present time, staff is not 

aware of alternative solvents that can perform this function. Therefore, staff is 

proposing that Penetrants that include on the Principal Display Panel: “Nonflammable: For use on Energized Equipment Only,” not be subject to this prohibition. 

They would, however, be required to meet the proposed VOC limits. 
Executive Summary -14 

Proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters: The reduction of GHGs in consumer 

products has been designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure in accordance with 

AB 32. One of the first consumer product emission sources identified is GHG 

compounds used in aerosol products. As a first step, staff is proposing, in new 

subsection 94509(r)(1), that Pressurized Gas Dusters shall not contain any compound 

that has a GWP of 150 or greater. Staff is also proposing in section 94509(r)(2) that 

Pressurized Gas Dusters would be provided a one-year sell-through after the effective 

date of the limits. 

In accordance with CEQA, to ensure that the VOC content of these products 

does not increase as a result of reformulation to meet GWP limits, a one percent by 

weight VOC limit, including fragrance, is also being proposed for Pressurized Gas 

Dusters. The proposal would also prohibit use of the TACs, perchloroethylene and 

methylene chloride. 

We are also proposing to specify that any chemical compounds that are 

present as impurities in an amount, in aggregate, of 0.1 percent by weight or less, are 

not subject to the GWP limit or toxics prohibition for Pressurized Gas Dusters. Some 

of the chemical compounds used in Pressurized Gas Dusters may contain very small 

quantities of contaminants. This provision would allow Pressurized Gas Dusters that 

contain those contaminants, present at very low levels, to comply with the regulatory 

provisions. 

Staff has also become aware that certain Pressurized Gas Dusters are 

designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the products must be 

non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide this non-flammable aspect, higher 

GWP propellants are used. At present time, staff is not aware of alternative 

propellants that can perform this function. Therefore, staff is proposing that 

Pressurized Gas Dusters that specify on the Principal Display Panel “Energized 

Equipment use only” be exempt from compliance with both the VOC and GWP limit. 

Requirements for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product: Staff is proposing 

a new subsection 94509(s) to describe the VOC content limit for Fabric SoftenerSingle Use Dryer Product. Rather than a percent by weight limit, a 0.05 grams of 

VOC per use limit is proposed. The limit is designed to provide a level playing field 

and to ensure that the size of the sheet substrate does not increase. In developing 

the limit for these products, staff determined that establishing a percent by weight limit 

could result in manufacturers using larger size sheets to comply. This would diminish 

emission reductions and potentially lead to increasing the solid waste stream. 

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the grams per use limit is proposed. The 

0.05 grams of VOC limit is designed to provide emission reductions roughly equivalent 

to a 2.6 percent by weight VOC per use limit, including fragrance. Because the limit 

already accounts for the fragrance, there is no need to provide the fragrance 

exemption contained in section 94510(c) for these products. This modification is 

proposed in section 94510(c). 
Executive Summary -15 

3. Proposed Amendments to Section 94510, Exemptions (subsections 

(h) and (l)) 

 At present, Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance are 

required to meet an 80 percent or a 75 percent by weight VOC limit, depending on 

when they first were introduced to the market. Products existing prior to ARB setting 

these two-tier limits do not need to comply with either limit. Products that were 

introduced between 1995 and 1999 are required to meet the 80 percent limit, but did 

not need to reformulate to meet the second-tier January 1, 1999, limit. Only products 

introduced after January 1, 1999, are required to meet the 75 percent limit. These 

exemptions, or “Grandfather” clauses, are contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). 

Staff is proposing to remove these “Grandfather” clauses. Under this proposal, all 

Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance would be required to 

meet the 75 percent limit effective December 31, 2014. The additional compliance 

deadline is proposed to account for the large number of products that will need to be 

reformulated. These proposals are contained in new subsections 94510(h)(3) and 

(l)(1). 

 

4. Proposed Amendments to Section 94512, Administrative 

Requirements 

 

Proposed Modification to Product Dating Requirements: Currently, 

section 94512(b)(1) specifies that a product must clearly display the date or code 

indicating the date of manufacture. We are proposing language to clarify that a 

sequential batch number on a product package does not satisfy the product dating 

requirements. 

 Proposed Modification to Labeling Requirements: Staff is proposing that nonaerosol Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound 

products would be required to display the applicable regulatory category and VOC limit 

as a percent by weight. Because different VOC limits are proposed, staff believes this 

is necessary to easily distinguish between Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically 

Curing Sealant or Caulking Compounds for enforcement purposes. This proposal is 

contained in section 94512(d). 

5. Proposed Amendments to Section 94513, Reporting Requirements 

 Staff is proposing 25 percent by weight VOC limits for Multi-purpose Lubricants 

and Penetrants, effective December 31, 2013. These are challenging but feasible limits 

within the time-frame proposed. For Multi-purpose Lubricants staff is proposing a 

technology forcing 10 percent second tier VOC limit, effective December 31, 2015. To 

ensure that manufacturers are on track, and that technology advances as expected, 

staff believes that manufacturers should demonstrate their progress toward meeting 

these limits. 
Executive Summary -16 

 As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Multi-purpose Lubricant and Penetrant 

manufacturers would need to supply by March 31, 2012, detailed written updates on 

their research and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the 

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

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

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

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

protocols used, the results of the testing, and the cost of reformulation efforts. A second 

report on reformulation to meet the 10 percent VOC limit for Multi-purpose Lubricants 

would be due on March 31, 2014. Sales data would be for calendar year 2013. 

 Should technical or commercial issues arise, or if it appears reductions could 

occur within a shorter timeframe, staff would develop appropriate measures to ensure 

air quality benefits occur as soon as possible. 

6. Proposed Amendments to Section 94515, Test Methods 

 Staff is proposing to clarify that ARB’s Method 310 be used as the analytical 

method to determine GWP content. This method already contains the necessary 

protocols to analyze for both HFC-152a and HFC-134a content. 

H. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

 Manufacturers of non-complying products will need to reformulate their products 

to meet the applicable VOC or GWP limits. Manufacturers have the flexibility to choose 

any formulation that meets the applicable limit and the reformulation options vary with 

each product category (see Chapter VI of the Technical Support Document). To comply 

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

replaced, with non-VOC ingredients. This may require switching to a water-based 

formulation, using acetone or another exempt solvent, increasing product solids, or 

formulating with a non-VOC propellant. Manufacturers may also need to change the 

valve, container, delivery system, or the other components of the consumer product 

depending on the individual formulation. ARB staff has proposed VOC limits that can 

be met without the increased use of toxic air contaminants. 

To meet the GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster, manufacturers of noncomplying products will need to substitute a lower GWP propellant for the currently used 

higher GWP propellant. We expect that manufacturers will substitute HFC-152a for 

HFC-134a. We are also proposing a VOC limit for Pressurized Gas Duster products to 

ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as products reformulate. Because 

HFC- 152a is an exempt VOC, meeting a 1 percent VOC limit is very feasible. 

 Table ES-4 summarizes, for the proposed VOC limits, data related to the 

complying market-shares (based on sales), as well as the number of products that 

currently comply relative to total number of products reported. 
Executive Summary -17 

Table ES-4 

Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares

 Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt%) 

Number of 

Complying 

Products/ 

Total 

Complying 

Market 

Share (%) 

Astringent / Toner (non-FDA regulated) All 35 177 / 203 70 

Aerosol 5 7 / 59 10 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Nonaerosol 1 54 / 117 25 

Aerosol 17 13 / 41 5 

Dusting Aid Nonaerosol 3 33 / 38 74 

Fabric Protectant Nonaerosol 1 42 / 63 95 

Fabric Softener – 

 Single Use Dryer Product All 

0.05 

grams per 

use* 

20 / 26 24 

Floor Maintenance Product All 1 57 / 98 53 

Floor Polish or Wax – 

 Wood Floor Wax All 70 *** / 7 *** 

Glass Cleaner Aerosol 10 32 / 95 37 

Motor Vehicle Wash All 0.2 311 / 366 89 

All 25 38 / 176 4 Multi-purpose Lubricant – 

 excluding solid & semisolid All 10 22 / 176 3 

Aerosol 25 *** / *** 100 

Odor Remover/Eliminator Nonaerosol 6 154 / 184 82 

Penetrant All 25 14 / 84 30 

Personal Fragrance Product (products with 

20% or less fragrance) All 75** 679 / 1101 37 

Pressurized Gas Duster All 1 89 / 90 > 99 

Chemically Curing Nonaerosol Sealant or 3 95 / 196 23 

Caulking 

Compound Non-Chemically 

Curing 

Nonaerosol 1.5 201 / 344 76 

Aerosol 15 18 / 70 4 

Spot Remover Nonaerosol 3 231 / 261 94 

Aerosol 8 *** / 8 *** 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner Nonaerosol 2 63 / 102 69 

Windshield Water Repellant All 75 *** / 30 *** 

Source: 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a) grown to 2008, and the 2007 

 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update 

* Grams per use limit provides emissions reductions equivalent to 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit, 

 including fragrance 

** Remove “Grandfather” clauses 

*** Omitted to protect confidentiality 

 
Executive Summary -18 

 Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed amendments through the use 

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

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

Products Regulation if they demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that 

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

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

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

 The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissions from products above 

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

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

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

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

and other information necessary to track overall emissions. 

 Although not shown in Tables ES-4, the complying market-share (based on 

sales) for the GHG limit for the Pressurized Gas Duster category is 86 percent. 

Moreover, 18 of 90 products currently comply with the GWP limit of 150. Based on 

these complying market-shares and the number of complying products, staff believes 

the proposed VOC and GHG limits are commercially and technologically feasible. 

I. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

 Staff evaluated the costs to comply with the proposed limits for potential impacts 

on profitability and other aspects of businesses (with particular attention to California 

businesses), the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the limits, and the estimated cost impacts to 

consumers. Chapter VII of the Technical Support Document contains a more thorough 

assessment of the economic impacts associated with the proposal. 

 CE is one measure of a regulation’s efficiency in reducing a given amount of 

pollutant (often reported in “dollars spent per pound of pollutant reduced”). Based on 

our analyses, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of the proposed VOC limits is about 

$6.23 per pound VOC reduced. This CE is higher than most other consumer product 

regulations. For example, the CE of amendments proposed in 2004 and 2006 was 

about $2.40 and $2.35, respectively, per pound of VOC reduced, over a 10-year 

lifetime. However, the CE of other consumer product rulemakings has been 

comparable to this proposal. For example, the CE of amendments related to aerosol 

adhesives in 2000, was about $6.00 per pound of VOC reduced. 

The CE for the proposed amendments reflects that VOC reductions from 

consumer products are becoming more difficult to achieve. A number of smaller 

emitting categories are being proposed for regulation, with resulting small reductions. 

Several categories are relatively costly because large numbers of products need to be 

reformulated to achieve fairly low VOC emission reduction totals. 
Executive Summary -19 

It was further determined that the cost of the measure to reduce GHG from 

Pressurized Gas Duster products is about $450,000 over ten years, or $45,000 per 

year. This yields a CE of about $0.22 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalents. The 

cost is fairly low because, as described below, the raw materials used in the 

reformulation are considerably less expensive than those currently used. 

 The estimated costs were derived using methodologies previously used for the 

Consumer Products Regulations and Cal/EPA guidelines for conducting cost analyses 

for major regulations. We determined that the regulation would cost businesses and 

individuals about $260 million over the 10-year lifetime. Because the costs incurred by 

industry to comply with this rulemaking are about $26 million per year, for ten years, it is 

considered a major regulation. The cost estimates are based on assumptions specific 

to each category depending on reformulation needs. For some categories it was 

assumed that manufacturers would either drop certain products or undergo minor 

product formulation changes, and for other categories, manufacturers would undergo 

complete production line overhaul and equipment replacement rather than simple retooling. 

Staff believes that the regulation cost and CE determination methodologies are 

quite conservative, and are thus in most cases over-estimated. There are several 

factors that contribute to the over estimation of costs. The mid-range cost (used to 

determine the overall cost and cost effectiveness of the regulation), is the average of 

the estimated high and low cost scenarios. The low cost scenario assumes that 

companies would choose the lowest cost reformulation pathway, making minor 

adjustments to a product’s formulation, or simply eliminating higher VOC products. We 

believe that most manufacturers would choose the lowest cost reformulation option. For 

the high cost scenario, it is assumed that there is significant research and development, 

and new equipment is needed to reformulate the product. We believe that few 

manufacturers would need to take the high cost reformulation approach. 

In the economic analysis, staff determined that the VOC limits for Multi-purpose 

Lubricants would be the most challenging and costly to comply with. Staff separately 

calculated the estimated costs of reformulation for each of the proposed tiers of the 

Multipurpose Lubricant proposal. Further, cost estimates were performed separately for 

aerosol and non-aerosol products respectively. The analysis shows that greater costs 

will be incurred during the first tier reformulation than the second tier reformulation. This 

results from the assumption that significant high end costs will be incurred in the first tier 

reformulation, but not all of these costs would necessarily be duplicated in the second 

tier reformulation. If major plant modifications or new equipment purchases are needed 

to meet either tier of the VOC limits, a manufacturer would likely choose to make these 

significant changes during one plant modification, rather than making significant 

changes more than once. In fact, certain companies may choose to reformulate only 

once, (i.e. reformulate to meet the second tier VOC limit before 2013.) Regardless of 

whether this assumption is correct, we believe that it is appropriate to assume that high 

end reformulation costs will be incurred during either the first tier reformulation or the 

second tier reformulation, but not both. Either assumption, that higher costs would be 
Executive Summary -20 

incurred during a given tier relative to the other, would yield the same amount of total 

costs being incurred to meet both tiers. 

 Another factor that can contribute to an over-estimation of costs is the 

assumptions used for the raw ingredient costs of the reformulated products. For the 

product categories for which VOC limits are proposed, we assumed that if the raw 

ingredients used in the reformulated product yielded a cost savings, the cost of the 

ingredients necessary to meet the new VOC limit is zero. This is an appropriate, 

conservative assumption because there are many reformulation options. However, in 

the case of Pressurized Gas Dusters we assumed that reformulation would yield a raw 

material savings, and incorporated the decreased cost in to the overall cost estimate. 

We believe that this approach is appropriate because, in order to comply with the 

proposed GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters, there is only one identified 

reformulation pathway, replacing HFC-134a with HFC-152a. Because HFC-152a is less 

expensive per pound that HFC-134a, it is appropriate that there would be a cost savings 

in virtually every case. 

 Consumers may have to pay more for some products subject to the proposed 

amendments, depending on the extent to which manufacturers are able and do pass 

along their costs to consumers. The average increase in cost per unit to the 

manufacturer is estimated to be about $0.03. This estimated cost increase per unit 

value is lower than the estimate derived for the 2006 Amendments. In that rulemaking, 

we found the average cost per unit increase to be about $0.17 per unit. 

 Based on our analysis, we expect most manufacturers to be able to absorb the 

added costs of the proposed regulation without an adverse impact on their profitability. 

However, it is likely that manufacturers would pass along some of their costs to product 

purchasers, thus lowering the impacts to business. 

 We also estimated the change in “return-on-owner’s equity” (ROE) as an 

indicator of the proposed limits’ potential impacts on business profitability. The cost to 

comply with the proposed regulation, through increased research and development, 

equipment purchase and other investment costs, is presumed to impact a business’ 

ROE and, therefore, its profitability. Our analysis indicates the estimated change in 

ROE is about a 0.7 to 4.0 percent change. The average change in ROE is about 

2.5 percent, relative to the current situation. A reduction of more than ten percent in 

profitability is considered to indicate a potential for adverse impacts. 

 Our ROE analysis for the proposed limits may overestimate the impact on 

business because it assumes that all of the costs of the proposed limits will be absorbed 

by manufacturers. In reality, we expect that at least some of the investment costs to 

comply with the proposed limits will be passed on to consumers. The analysis 

presumes that some cost mitigation will occur due to “technology-transfer” between 

product lines and from third-party manufacturers (i.e., contract fillers) who fill essentially 

equivalent products for a number of competing businesses. 

 
Executive Summary -21 

While we expect that most businesses will be able to absorb, or pass through, 

the costs of the proposed amendments without significant adverse impacts on their 

profitability, there is the possibility that some individual businesses will be adversely 

affected by this regulatory action. Therefore, it is possible that the proposed 

amendments may have a significant adverse impact on some businesses that are not in 

a market position to invest monies to develop complying products, or to absorb and/or 

pass through the increased cost resulting from their compliance with the proposed 

amendments. 

 Based on our analysis, we do not expect the proposed amendments to have a 

significant impact on employment, or business creation, elimination, or expansion. We 

also do not expect the regulation to have a significant impact on the competitiveness of 

California businesses compared with those outside of California. This is because all 

companies that sell these products in California would have to meet the proposed 

requirements, whether located in California or outside of California. 

 The Air Resources Board (ARB) would have costs associated with adoption of 

the proposed amendments. Adoption of the amendments would necessitate an 

increase in ARB staff to properly enforce the Consumer Products Regulation. These 

proposed amendments are setting new limits for a number of previously unregulated 

categories. It has been determined that to enforce these new limits, two ARB staff will 

be needed. This would result in an increased cost to the State of approximately 

$300,000 per year. 

J. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

 The proposed amendments would reduce VOC and air toxic emissions. The 

proposed amendments would also reduce the use of compounds with high GWP in 

Pressurized Gas Duster products. Because of this, staff has determined that the 

amendments would have an overall positive impact on the environment. No significant 

adverse impacts were identified. We evaluated the effects of these reductions, as well 

as the other proposed amendments, on ground-level ozone concentrations, climate 

change, stratospheric ozone depletion, air toxic emissions, water quality, solid waste 

disposal, and energy use. A complete analysis of potential environmental impacts is 

contained in Chapter VIII of the Technical Support Document. 

 Because VOCs are ozone precursors, the VOC reduction of 5.8 tons per day 

would result in reductions in ozone concentrations. If we assume that the average 

ozone forming potential of consumer product VOC emissions is about 1.50 pounds of 

ozone per pound of VOC emitted (based on the MIR scale, title 17, CCR, 

sections 94700-94701), then we predict the resulting ozone reductions would be about 

9 tons per day. No other significant positive or negative impacts were identified. 

 The expected reduction in use of compounds with high GWP would be equivalent 

to reducing 0.20 MMT of CO2 per year. This reduction will help meet California’s desire 

for early reductions and also assist in meeting our 2020 target. All technologically 
Executive Summary -22 

feasible cost-effective reductions need to be pursued to meet the requirements of 

AB 32. Because we are proposing to establish a VOC limit for Pressurized Gas 

Dusters, no increase in VOC emissions will occur. No increased use of TACs would 

occur because the proposal would also prohibit use of methylene chloride and 

perchloroethylene. Related to solid waste, reformulated products are potentially more 

efficient than existing products, so a reduction in the solid waste stream should occur 

(DuPont and Falcon, 2004). No other significant positive or negative impacts were 

identified. 

 The proposal would also prohibit the use of the TAC solvents methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in six categories (except in certain niche 

applications where non-flammable products are needed). Exposure to these air toxics 

would be reduced by about 0.2 tons per day. The prohibition is proposed as a 

mitigation measure under CEQA. The prohibition would ensure that manufacturers will 

not switch to using these solvents as a reformulation option. However, it is likely that 

this could lead to a very slight increase in VOC emissions because products currently 

formulated with these TAC compounds would have to replace them—likely with VOC 

ingredients. Staff has determined that the reduction in exposure to these carcinogens 

outweighs the very small potential increase in VOC emissions. No other significant 

positive or negative impacts were identified. 

 The proposal to exempt HFE 7200 from the definition of VOC should have an 

overall benefit in reducing VOC emissions and stratospheric ozone depleting emissions. 

HFE 7200 could be a suitable substitute for some VOCs, and can be used to replace 

stratospheric ozone depleting compounds such as HCFC-141b. No other significant 

positive or negative impacts were identified. 

 Related to solid waste and energy impact, no significant impacts were identified. 

However, it has been suggested that end-use consumers of Fabric Softener-Single Use 

Dryer Products may begin using more than a single sheet per drying cycle, or may 

switch to using the liquid product form. This could result in more dryer sheets being 

land-filled, and/or increased transportation costs because of the differential in weight 

between liquid and dryer sheet products. However, no data were provided to support 

these claims. As is always done, we intend to monitor product sales trends to ensure 

that unintended consequences of establishing the proposed VOC limit do not occur. 

 Other language and definitional changes proposed should have an overall 

positive impact because these provisions are designed to aid in enforcing the 

regulation. 

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

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

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

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

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

people of any given race, culture, or income would be more impacted than any others 
Executive Summary -23 

would. All Californians should benefit equally from the reduction in VOC, GHG and TAC 

emissions from the consumer product categories proposed for regulation. 

K. FUTURE PLANS

 Future activities include continued review of the 2006 Consumer Products 

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

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

product reduction commitments in the Strategy and as a Discrete Early Action Measure 

under AB 32. Work is also ongoing to assess the most feasible approach to regulating 

Paint and Lacquer Thinner, and evaluating exposure to TACs used in Nail Coatings. 

 The Strategy also includes a longer term commitment to assess innovative 

measures to further reduce VOC emissions from consumer products. 

L. RECOMMENDATION

 We recommend that the Board adopt the proposed amendments to the 

Consumer Products Regulation. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected 

Halogenated Chemicals – Staff Report. March, 2008. (ARB, 2008b) 

2. Air Resources Board. 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. 

February, 2008. (ARB, 2008c) 

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

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

4. Air Resources Board. List Of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. 

 October 17, 2007. (ARB, 2007b) 

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

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

(ARB, 2007h) 

6. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

7. California Department of Finance. Report: State Adds 444,000 in 2006: 2007 

Population Nears 37.7 Million. May 1, 2007. (CA DOF, 2007) 
Executive Summary -24 

8. DuPont Company in association with Falcon Safety Products. Fluorochemicals 

Laboratory DuPont Company, Technical Report – Cleaning Tests for Aerosol 

Dusting Aids (Dusters). December 1, 2004. Schweitzer, M., Lubert, J., 

 Hitches, B., Bilsback, B., McLeer, D., Creazzo, J.A., (Dupont & Falcon, 2004) 

9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995, The 

Science of Climate Change; Contribution of Working Group I to the Second 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. 

Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and 

 K. Maskell, eds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K. (IPCC, 1996) 
Appendix A 

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the 

California Consumer Products Regulation 

Technical Support Document

Technical Support Document Chapter I - 1 

I. INTRODUCTION

A. OVERVIEW 

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

proposing amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation. The 

amendments are designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) and air toxic 

emissions. The amendments would also reduce the use of compounds with high global 

warming potential (GWP) in consumer products. The regulation is codified in 

title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94507-94517. The proposed 

amendments to reduce VOC emissions would partially fulfill the consumer product 

reduction commitment contained in the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan. The proposed amendment to reduce the use of high GWP 

compounds is designed in accordance with the Discrete Early Action Measure 

requirements set forth in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). 

 As proposed, other amendments would exclude a compound from the definition 

of VOC, language modifications would clarify and improve existing regulatory 

provisions, and use of toxic air contaminants (TACs) in seven categories would be 

prohibited. The toxics prohibition is a mitigation measure, as required by the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to ensure that certain TACs are not used as 

products are reformulated to meet new limits. 

 This Technical Support Document, Appendix A, presents ARB staff’s technical 

justification and analysis of the proposed amendments. It is part of the Initial Statement 

of Reasons (ISOR) for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products 

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

Appendix E provides a complete list of the acronyms used in this ISOR. 

 Included in this Technical Support Document is the following information: 

• background information on the consumer products program related to the 

control of VOC and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; 

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

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

State law; 

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

overall need for the emission reductions; 

• a description of the proposed amendments; 

• an analysis of the environmental and expected economic impacts from the 

proposed amendments; and 

• a summary of future activities. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 2 

B. ENABLING LEGISLATION

 In 1988, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA or “the Act”) became law to address 

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

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

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

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

feasible reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products. Prior to adoption, the 

Board must determine that adequate data exist to establish both of the following: 

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

standards; and 

• the regulations are commercially and technologically feasible. 

 Section 41712 defines a consumer product as a chemically formulated product 

used by household and institutional consumers. Consumer products include, but are 

not limited to: detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; 

personal care products such as antiperspirants and hairsprays; home, lawn, and garden 

products; disinfectants; sanitizers; automotive specialty products; and aerosol paints. 

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

consumer products program because local air districts regulate them. 

 The Act further stipulates that regulations adopted must not eliminate any 

product form, and that recommendations from health professionals be considered when 

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

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

products sold statewide to household and commercial consumers. The primary goal of 

this section was to set forth a program to reduce ground-level ozone concentrations, as 

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

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

comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce global warming compound emissions in 

California. AB 32 added section 1. division 25.5 (commencing with section 38500) to 

the California Health and Safety Code. These sections require ARB to develop 

regulations and consider market mechanisms that will ultimately reduce California’s 

GHG emissions equivalent to the 1990 baseline year by 2020. Among other things, 

AB 32 requires ARB to make immediate progress towards the reduction of GHG 

emissions. Specific Discrete Early Action Measures are to be identified and regulations 

are to be adopted and enforceable by January 1, 2010. Beyond the requirements of 

AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 calls for an additional GHG 

reduction of 80 percent by 2050. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 3 

C. BACKGROUND 

 1. Existing Consumer Product Regulations 

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

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

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

affect 115 consumer product categories by setting 150 VOC limits. These limits have 

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

reduction in VOC emissions. We have also reduced exposure to TACs. Emissions of 

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

compounds in 63 categories. In addition, two voluntary regulations, the Alternative 

Control Plan and the Hairspray Credit Program have been adopted to provide 

compliance flexibility to companies. These five regulations are codified in 

title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94500 to 94575: 

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

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

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

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

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

Regulation of consumer products began in 1989 with adoption of the 

Antiperspirants and Deodorants Regulation. The “general” Consumer Products 

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

recent amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation were approved in 2004 and 

2006 (ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). The Aerosol Coatings Regulation was adopted in 

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

regulatory actions with dates of regulatory amendments are provided in Appendix C. 

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

State Implementation Plans

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

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

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

quality standards (NAAQS). 

 

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

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

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

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

consumer products. State law designates ARB as the lead agency for all purposes 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 4 

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

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

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

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

Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F, Section 52.220 lists all of 

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

pending U.S. EPA approval. 

 Consumer product VOC emissions are known to contribute to concentrations of 

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

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

ozone concentrations is well-established, and quantified. However, their impact on 

PM2.5 concentrations is less clear. Because VOCs are ozone precursors, specific 

consumer product control measures have been developed related to ozone control. 

These measures have been included in SIPs. For this reason, our summary here 

focuses on consumer product strategies that have been, and are, designed to meet 

ambient air quality standards for ozone. 

 1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozone 

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

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

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

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

Several rulemakings were proposed and adopted to work toward meeting the SIP 

commitment. 

 2003 State and Federal Strategy and 2003 South Coast SIP 

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

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

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

elements were again designed toward attainment of the federal one-hour ozone 

standard. 

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

were designated as CONS-1 and CONS-2, and are summarized below. 

• Measure CONS-1: Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2006. 

The CONS-1 measure was designed to achieve VOC emission reductions from 

consumer products of at least 2.3 tons per day in the South Coast Air Basin and 

5.3 tons per day statewide by 2010. On June 26, 2004, the Board approved a CONS-1 

measure (the “2004 Amendments”), which will achieve 3.0 tons per day in VOC 

emission reductions in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010, and achieve 6.9 tons per day 

in VOC emission reductions statewide by 2010 (ARB, 2004b). The CONS-1 measure 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 5 

became legally effective on June 20, 2005. As of this writing, all but one of the CONS-1 

VOC limits are in full effect. The CONS-1 commitment has been fulfilled. 

• Measure CONS-2: Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2008-2010. 

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

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

products of between 8.5 tons per day and 15 tons per day in the South Coast Air Basin 

by 2010. Statewide, the CONS-2 measure was to achieve 20-35 tons per day in 

emission reductions by 2010. Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation in 

2006, which will result in reductions of 4.9 tons per day in South Coast and 11.5 tons 

per day statewide, partially fulfilled this commitment (ARB, 2006a). 

The 2003 SIP was withdrawn from consideration and is no longer in effect. 

However, the remaining commitment from the CONS-2 measure has been incorporated 

in the 2007 Strategy commitment which is described below. 

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (Strategy)

In July 1997, U.S. EPA established a new federal ozone standard. As opposed 

to a one-hour peak ozone standard, the new ozone standard established a limit of 

0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours (U.S. EPA, 1997). On April 15, 2004, U.S. EPA 

designated 15 areas as non-attainment in California for the eight-hour ozone standard 

(U.S. EPA, 2004). Many, but not all of these areas were also designated as nonattainment for the federal one-hour standard. New non-attainment areas include a 

number of rural Sierra Nevada foothill counties and additional parts of the Sacramento 

Valley. The one-hour standard was revoked on June 15, 2005, one year after the 

effective date of the designation, and SIPs showing how each area will meet the eighthour standard were submitted to U.S. EPA in 2007. 

 

To address the eight-hour standard, the Strategy was adopted at the 

September 25, 2007 Board hearing (ARB, 2007d). This is a comprehensive Strategy 

designed to attain federal air quality standards through technologically feasible, cost 

effective, and far reaching measures. The Strategy describes the scope of the State’s 

ozone and PM2.5 non-attainment problems and sets forth ARB’s plan on how California 

can comply with federal standards. 

The Strategy is the first plan designed to show how California will meet the 

national eight-hour ozone standard. Because the eight-hour standard is more stringent 

than the one-hour standard, U.S. EPA set presumptive deadlines that allow more time 

for attainment. Nonetheless, the measures California has adopted to meet the one-hour 

standard remain in place and will deliver substantial new reductions over the next few 

years. 

Specific to consumer products, in the Strategy ARB committed to reducing 

consumer product VOC emissions by 30 to 40 tons per day by 2014. To achieve this 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 6 

commitment, rulemakings are to be initiated in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe with limits 

becoming effective between 2010 and 2012. These actions are to be followed with 

additional rulemakings in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe. Reductions are to occur between 

2012 and 2014 (ARB, 2007d). 

Further reductions from consumer products are important because VOC 

emissions from consumer products are predicted to become the largest source of VOC 

emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, and the third largest source in the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin by 2020. The Strategy, in combination with local actions, provides 

emission reductions necessary to meet the eight-hour ozone standard in these two most 

challenging regions. 

VOC reductions from consumer products are becoming more difficult to achieve. 

In light of this, the Strategy includes a commitment to explore innovative reduction 

strategies in the longer term. One such measure would include investigating emission 

reduction opportunities through reactivity-based standards. A reactivity-based approach 

relies on the scientific principle that different chemical compounds react to form different 

amounts of ozone in the atmosphere. Reactivity-based standards reduce emissions of 

the most photochemically reactive compounds. 

Alternative market-based mechanisms would also be explored to encourage the 

development, distribution, and purchase of cleaner, very low, or zero emitting products. 

Examples of mechanisms to explore are an environmental product labeling program, 

programs where companies set their own emission reduction goals, and the use of print 

and broadcast media for public education. If these mechanisms cannot produce 

meaningful emission reductions from the consumer products source category, then 

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

of VOC emission credits; and funding of special projects to reduce emissions or 

accelerate reductions from pollution sources outside of the consumer products industry. 

 Future State Implementation Plans 

Up-to-date information on SIP activities can be found on ARB’s website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm. On March 12, 2008, U.S. EPA reduced the 

eight-hour “primary” ozone standard to a level of 0.075 ppm. U.S. EPA also 

strengthened the secondary eight-hour ozone standard to the level of 0.075 ppm, 

making it identical to the revised primary standard. The final rulemaking is to be 

effective on May 27, 2008. These changes will improve both public health protection 

and the protection of sensitive trees and plants. Because California’s eight-hour air 

quality standard for ozone is lower still, additional measures beyond those to meet the 

federal standard will be needed. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 7 

3. Consumer Products and the California Global Warming Solutions Act 

of 2006 (AB 32)

Various consumer products may contain GHGs in their formulations. Most often 

these GHGs are propellants such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and carbon dioxide 

(CO2). To a lesser extent some GHGs are used as solvents. 

As mentioned earlier, AB 32 requires immediate progress, described as Discrete 

Early Action Measures. These measures require ARB to identify and adopt regulations 

to reduce GHG emissions. These early actions are to be enforceable by 

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

has been designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure. Therefore, as a Discrete 

Early Action measure, ARB staff has committed to eliminate or reduce the use of GHG 

compounds with high GWP that are used in consumer products. The GHG emission 

reduction from consumer products is estimated to be 0.25 million metric tons of CO2

equivalents (this metric is described in Chapter IV) or more, if feasible. 

 

4. National Consumer Products Regulations

 On September 11, 1998, U.S. EPA promulgated a national consumer products 

regulation, the “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer 

Products (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart C, Sections 59.201 et seq.; see the 

September 11, 1998, Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 176, pages 48819-48847).” 

(U.S. EPA, 1998). This action set national VOC emission standards for 24 categories of 

consumer products. The rule became effective on September 11, 1998, and the VOC 

limits became effective on December 10, 1998. There are similarities and differences 

between the California and national consumer products regulations; however, the 

national rule does not preclude states from adopting more stringent regulations. 

 In the summer of 2006 U.S. EPA began work on amendments to their existing 

national consumer products rules. Their amendments are based on California’s 

CONS-1 (2004 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments) categories and limits. 

The amendments are expected to become effective on January 1, 2009. 

U.S. EPA has also recently promulgated a national rule for aerosol coatings 

(spray paints) based on ARB’s Aerosol Coatings Regulation. This is a reactivity-based 

regulation. The national aerosol coatings rule will become effective on January 1, 2009. 

(U.S. EPA, 2007). 

 Although the national consumer products rule is similar in many aspects to the 

California regulation, it is less effective in reducing VOC emissions from consumer 

products. The national regulations are generally less stringent than ARB’s and apply to 

fewer categories. The existing national consumer products rule achieves a 20 percent 

reduction in VOC emissions, while California’s existing consumer products and aerosol 

coatings regulations have already achieved a 50 percent reduction in the regulated 

categories. The federal regulation also does not prohibit use of any toxic compounds. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 8 

 The California Consumer Products Regulation has prohibited use of certain toxic 

compounds in 63 categories, resulting in a reduction of toxic compound emissions of 

13 tons per day. Because California has unique air quality problems, reducing VOC 

emissions from all categories, including consumer products, to the maximum extent 

feasible, is necessary to attain the federal and State ambient air quality standards for 

ozone. 

 There are no national consumer products rules related to reducing GHG 

emissions. 

 REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. State Strategy for California’s 2007 Implementation Plan. 

Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the Air Resources Board on 

 September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d) 

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

the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation. September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a) 

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners 

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products. May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b) 

4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings. (40 CFR Parts 51 and 59)

 Federal Register: July 16, 2007. Volume 72. Number 135. (U.S. EPA, 2007) 

5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Designations and 

Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; 

Early Action Compact Areas with Deferred Effective Dates. Federal Register: 

April 30, 2004. Volume 69. Number 84: 23857-23951. (U.S. EPA, 2004) 

6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products. (40 CFR Part 59). 

Federal Register: September 11, 1998. Volume 63. Number 176: 48819-48847. 

(U.S. EPA, 1998) 

7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone; Final Rule. Federal Register: July 18, 1997. 

 Volume 62. Number 138: 38855-38896. (U.S. EPA, 1997)
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 9 

II. DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

 This Chapter contains a description of the public process used to develop the 

proposed amendments. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (Government Code 

section 11340 et seq.) requires that development of regulations must allow for public 

input. This Chapter also describes the staff’s evaluation of emission reduction 

opportunities, and alternatives to the final proposal that were considered. 

A. PUBLIC PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING PROPOSED LIMITS 

 In this Chapter, we describe our process to involve the public in developing the 

proposed amendments, and the staff’s evaluation of emission reduction strategies. In 

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

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

any member of the public. The CPRWG participated in the development of the 2003 

Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Survey), which serves as the basis 

for this proposal. The CPRWG was also instrumental in the development of the 2004 

and 2006 amendments, as well as these proposed amendments. 

 Further outreach, beyond the CPRWG, was conducted to identify and involve 

stakeholders in the development of the Discrete Early Action Measure for greenhouse 

gas reductions. As part of the process, in February 2008, ARB conducted a survey 

update for the Pressurized Gas Duster category. The intent of the survey update was to 

evaluate propellant technology and to update sales data for the 2007 calendar year. 

The survey was conducted in response to comments from stakeholders that indicated 

the market for Pressurized Gas Dusters had changed since our 2003 Survey. 

 Consumer product manufacturers, chemical producers, marketers, trade 

associations, and various other stakeholders listed below, have actively participated in 

the process. 

• Adhesives and Sealants Council 

• Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy 

• American Beauty Association 

• American Chemistry Council 

• Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association

• Automotive Specialty Products Association

• California Fire Chief Association

• California Grocers Association

• California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative

• California League of Food Processors

• Coalition for Clean Air

• Consumer Specialty Products Association 

• Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (now known as Personal Care 

Products Council) 

• Environmental Working Group 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 10 

• Fire District Association of California 

• Fragrance Materials Association 

• Institute for Research and Technical Assistance 

• International Sanitary Supply Association 

• Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association 

• National Aerosol Association 

• National Paint and Coatings Association 

• Soap and Detergent Association 

• Western Aerosol Information Bureau 

 Representatives from local air districts and agencies, including the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District and the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency were also involved in the process. 

 ARB staff maintains a mailing list of over 5,000 companies and interested parties, 

including environmental organizations, which received information throughout the 

development of the proposed amendments. We have established an electronic list 

serve, which has over 1,300 subscribers, to allow subscribers to receive pertinent 

information. We also have a public website for the 2008 Consumer Products 

Regulatory Work Group Activity. 

Among other things, these amendments address categories that were deferred 

from the 2006 rulemaking as a result of input from stakeholders. Numerous issues 

were raised that required additional evaluation and analysis in these categories. In 

addition to the outreach for the 2006 rulemaking, a public CPRWG meeting and an 

additional public workshop were conducted on August 29, 2007 and March 5, 2008, 

respectively, to develop this proposal. 

 On August 23, 2007, staff posted the first proposal for the 2008 Consumer 

Products Regulation Amendments to the CPRWG activity website. These proposals 

were discussed at the CPRWG meeting on August 29, 2007. At the meeting, staff 

discussed the draft regulatory categories, proposed limits, and the rulemaking timeline. 

The meeting served as a forum for stakeholder comments on the proposals and 

schedule. 

 On January 11, 2008, staff posted a revised table of proposed limits, for further 

review and comment. This proposal reflected some modifications based on comments 

received at the August 2007 CPRWG meeting. 

 A public workshop for this rulemaking was held on March 5, 2008. Materials 

describing the proposals were posted to the website on February 29, 2008. At the 

workshop, staff described proposals for modifications to the Consumer Products 

Regulation. These included the proposed definitions and volatile organic compound 

(VOC) limits, the toxics prohibition proposal, a Discrete Early Action greenhouse gas 

Measure (GHG), and a proposal to exclude a compound from the VOC definition. 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 11 

 To solicit additional information and comments, staff held numerous individual 

meetings, and teleconferences, with stakeholders. At several of these meetings, 

requested by industry associations, industry representatives presented technical 

information related to reformulation of products for which VOC and GHG limits are 

proposed. Staff also reviewed survey data, performed shelf surveys, and researched 

technical literature, patents, and trade journals during the development of this proposal. 

B. STAFF EVALUATION OF EMISSION REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES 

 Development of the proposed amendments began with the review of the 2003 

Survey. The 2003 Survey collected information on about 250 categories of consumer 

products. These 250 categories comprise about two-thirds of the overall consumer 

products emissions inventory, or about 160 tons per day. Over 915 companies 

responded to the 2003 Survey with information on over 26,000 products (ARB, 2004a). 

The 2003 Survey, in conjunction with the recently conducted 2006 survey, and the 2007 

Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update, conducted in 2008 (ARB, 2008c), are designed 

to obtain the comprehensive information necessary to develop new consumer product 

emission standards that together would achieve a minimum VOC emission reduction of 

30 to 40 tons per day by 2014, and GHG emission reductions equivalent to reducing an 

estimated 0.25 million metric tons of CO2 (MMT CO2e) by 2020 (see Chapter I, Section 

C. Background). 

 The focus of the 2003 Survey was primarily on categories where an opportunity 

for emission reductions was identified. After the 2003 Survey data were compiled, staff 

prioritized product categories for possible regulation. This process began with the 

elimination of categories where staff believed no viable opportunity for reduction existed 

at the current time. As a result of this process, staff initially identified 61 product 

categories for potential emission reduction opportunities which included 21 previously 

unregulated categories. As a result, in 2006, lower VOC limits were set for 

13 previously regulated categories and new VOC limits were set for 3 categories. 

 In this same timeframe, staff postponed consideration of some product 

categories to provide adequate time to evaluate the feasibility of VOC reductions and/or 

time to address technical issues. In addition, staff revised emission estimates to 

address product mis-categorization, products that were already regulated under local air 

district rules, and reporting errors. The categories that are the subject of this 

rulemaking were primarily those that were postponed in the 2006 rulemaking. Further 

evaluation of the 2003 Survey data indicated that it was also possible to reduce the use 

of compounds with high GWPs in Pressurized Gas Dusters. 

 

 During the workgroup and workshop process, staff presented specific proposals 

and alternatives to the public for consideration. The proposed amendments were 

developed based on the 2003 Survey results, as well as the results from the 2007 

Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update conducted in early 2008. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 12 

 Staff also identified an additional VOC emission reduction possibility. In March 

2008, a final report by ARB staff recommended that a VOC exemption be granted for 

hydrofluoroether 7200 (HFE 7200). To the extent this compound is used to replace 

VOCs, providing an exemption will result in additional VOC emission reductions. 

 In developing the proposed amendments, staff reorganized survey categories 

based on similarities in product function or other criteria. Staff further developed the 

proposed VOC and GHG limits for product categories based on technical information 

provided by interested parties and staff’s research efforts. Staff made some 

modifications to the original proposal after consideration and evaluation of comments. 

C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

 Government Code section 11346.2 requires ARB to consider and evaluate 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulation and provide reasons for rejecting 

those alternatives. Staff identified three alternative approaches to the current proposal: 

“No Action,” “Set Different Limits,” and “Set Limits for Different Categories.” 

 Alternative One- No Action

A “No Action” alternative would be to forego adopting the proposed amendments, 

or delay adoption of the proposed measures. The “No Action” alternative would result in 

failing to make progress toward meeting our SIP commitment, and failing to make 

progress in reducing the use of high-GWP compounds in consumer products (See 

Chapter I. Introduction). In the case of not meeting the SIP commitments, there is a 

potential for loss of federal funds. The citizens of California would not benefit from the 

improved air quality that would result from the reduction of emissions being proposed. 

This alternative would have no cost on business. 

Alternative Two – Set Different Limits

 As was discussed in section B above, staff thoroughly evaluated each category 

for which a limit is proposed. Staff proposed limits based on low emitting technologies 

reported in the 2003 Survey. Stakeholders provided additional information pertinent to 

the categories and, in some cases, proposed alternative limits. Staff evaluated all 

comments and determined the most feasible limit from all of the alternatives proposed 

or considered. The final proposal contains limits that were determined to obtain the 

maximum feasible reduction, were commercially and technologically feasible, preserved 

product forms (as required by Health and Safety Code Section 41712), and together 

achieved the necessary emission reductions to partially fulfill ARB’s SIP commitments 

and the Discrete Early Action Measures to reduce GHGs. 

Alternative Three – Set Limits for Different Categories

 Staff carefully reviewed the 2003 Survey data to select categories where 

reductions were feasible. Considering all available information, staff determined that at 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 13 

this time, for certain categories, limits would not achieve significant reductions, or could 

not be set such that it could be demonstrated that the limits were commercially or 

technologically feasible without further investigation. Examples of categories where 

further investigation is needed include Air Fresheners, Nail Coatings, and Paint and 

Lacquer Thinners. 

 Related to GHG reductions, the Pressurized Gas Duster category presented the 

best opportunity for reductions. We have the best available data to set the proposed 

GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters. 

 For this current action, staff is proposing new or lower VOC limits for multiple 

categories and a GWP limit for one category that would achieve the maximum feasible 

reductions, and partially fulfill ARB’s commitments. It should be noted that ARB has 

already set VOC limits for 115 product categories, with 150 VOC limits, achieving a 

50 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the regulated categories. 

 We also note that categories surveyed in the 2006 Consumer and Commercial 

Products Survey will be evaluated and additional opportunities for further reductions in 

VOCs and GHGs may be identified. 

 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. 

 February, 2008. (ARB, 2008c) 

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

Technical Support Document Chapter III - 14 

III. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR EMISSION REDUCTIONS

 In this Chapter, we describe State law requirements related to setting volatile 

organic compound (VOC) and Global Warming Potential (GWP) limits, and how our 

proposals meet these criteria. We also provide the information related to complying 

products and complying marketshares which indicate the limits are commercially and 

technologically feasible in the timeframes provided. 

A. VOC REDUCTIONS 

Health and Safety Code section 41712 gives ARB authority to control emissions 

from a very diverse number of products sold statewide to household and commercial 

consumers. By law, “Consumer Product" means a chemically formulated product used 

by household and institutional consumers, including, but not limited to, detergents; 

cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, 

lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive 

specialty products; but does not include other paint products, furniture coatings, or 

architectural coatings. 

 Section 41712 requires the Board to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum 

feasible reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer products after making certain 

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

establish that the regulations are necessary to attain State and federal ambient air 

quality standards and the regulations are commercially and technologically feasible and 

necessary. Amendments to section 41712 in 1996 specified that regulations adopted 

by the Board cannot result in the elimination of a product form. Product form refers to 

the shape and structure of the product, such as liquid, solid, powder, gel, crystal, 

aerosol, or pump spray. 

The Board must consider the effect that the limits or requirements proposed for 

health benefit products will have on the efficacy of those products in killing or 

inactivating agents of infectious diseases such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi. In this 

regard, the Board must consult with health professionals when developing VOC control 

measures for health benefit products. 

The Board must also meet its obligations under the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). ARB’s SIP commitments are described in both the Executive Summary and in 

Chapter I. 

 Related to VOC reductions, Chapter IV describes why the proposed 

amendments are necessary to attain ambient air quality standards, and why the data 

are adequate to adopt the proposed limits. Our focus in this Chapter is related to our 

rationale of why the proposed VOC limits are commercially and technologically feasible. 

During the early development of consumer product regulations, ARB staff established 

guidelines in setting the limits to ensure that these statutory criteria were met. These 

guidelines and statutory criteria were followed in developing the proposed amendments. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 15 

Section C describes the terms “technologically feasible” and “commercially feasible,” as 

they relate to VOC reductions. 

B. GHG REDUCTIONS 

 Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) was signed into law in 2006. It is codified in Health and 

Safety Code section 38500 et. seq. These sections require ARB to develop regulations 

and consider market mechanisms that will ultimately reduce California’s greenhouse 

gas emissions equivalent to the 1990 levels by 2020. It requires ARB to identify a list of 

Early Action Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures by June 30, 2007. A subset of 

these has been identified as Discrete Early Action Measures. These actions are to be 

adopted and legally enforceable (approved by Office of Administrative Law) by 

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

products is designated as one of the approved early actions. 

In developing regulations to meet GHG reduction goals, in accordance with 

section 38562, certain criteria are to be met. Among other things, the regulations must 

be equitable, minimize costs, and maximize the benefits to California. The GHG 

regulations are also required to be technologically feasible and cost-effective. 

Section D describes the criteria to be met in developing GHG reductions. 

C. TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY OF VOC LIMITS 

 The proposed VOC limits were set based on the lower VOC content technologies 

existing within a product category, or are based on low emitting technology transfer from 

other products. In doing this, staff made sure that the various product forms within each 

category would be preserved. For the majority of the categories proposed for 

regulation, there are products on the market which currently comply. Where there is low 

complying market share, lower emission technology exists that can provide a pathway 

for compliance. 

 1. Technologically Feasible

 Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) requires that the Board adopt 

consumer product regulations that are “technologically feasible.” Technological 

feasibility is a different concept than "commercial feasibility," and does not take into 

account the cost of reformulating a product. Staff believes that a proposed limit is 

technologically feasible if it meets at least one of the following criteria: (1) the limit is 

already being met by at least one product within the same category, or (2) the limit can 

reasonably be expected to be met in the time frame provided through additional 

development efforts. 

 In setting the proposed VOC limits, staff made an effort, wherever possible, to 

ensure that multiple reformulation technologies exist which would allow products to 

comply. Proposed limits were set at VOC levels that staff determined could be met 

without increased use of toxic air contaminants, GHGs, or ozone-depleting compounds. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 16 

General reformulation options include addition of water with co-solvents, development 

of emulsion products, use of low vapor pressure (LVP)-VOC solvents, use of non-VOC 

propellants, and use of exempt solvents. 

2. Commercially Feasible 

 Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) also requires the Board to adopt 

consumer product regulations that are “commercially feasible.” The term “commercially 

feasible” is not defined in State law. In interpreting this term, the staff has utilized the 

reasoning employed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

in interpreting the federal Clean Air Act. In the leading case of International Harvester 

Company v. Ruckelshaus, (D.C. Cir. 1973) 478 F. 2d 615, the Court held that the 

U. S. EPA could promulgate technology-forcing motor vehicle emission limits which 

might result in fewer models and a more limited choice of engine types for consumers, 

as long as the basic market demand for new passenger automobiles could be generally 

met. 

 Following this reasoning, staff has concluded that a regulation is “commercially 

feasible” as long as the “basic market demand” for a particular consumer product can 

be met. “Basic market demand” is the underlying need of consumers for a product to 

fulfill a basic, necessary function. This must be distinguished from consumer 

“preference,” which may be towards specific attributes of a particular product. A 

“preference” is the choice of consumers for a certain product or products based upon 

fragrance, cost, texture, etc. 

 By way of example, a consumer has a basic market demand for a glass cleaner 

to remove soils, grease, dirt or grime from their windows. Glass cleaners may be 

formulated with glycol ether solvents or with ammonia. Consumers may choose an 

ammoniated glass cleaner because they prefer the performance characteristics, or they 

may choose a non-ammoniated glass cleaner because they dislike the smell of 

ammonia. This distinction is not recognized by all parties. Some stakeholders have 

expressed the view that consumers do not have a “basic market demand” for a general 

class of products, but that consumers instead have a number of separate and distinct 

“basic market demands” for many specialty products with differing characteristics. 

 ARB staff believes the consumer “preference” interpretation of “basic market 

demand” is inconsistent with the reasoning from the International Harvester case. To 

adopt such a narrow interpretation would be inconsistent with the clearly expressed 

legislative intent that “...the State board shall adopt regulations to achieve the maximum 

feasible reduction in reactive organic compounds emitted by consumer products...” 

(Health and Safety Code section 41712(a)). In order to achieve emission reductions, 

manufacturers of high VOC products which perform the same basic function as lower 

VOC counterparts must reduce the VOCs in their products. It is expected that when a 

product formulation changes, some attributes of the product will also change. If ARB 

were to establish limits which accounted for every distinct feature of every product, then 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 17 

each product would require a limit unto itself. Using this approach, it would be 

impossible to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOC emissions. 

 Every currently marketed product has some unique features that differentiate it 

from other products. Consumers who purchase a product have demonstrated a 

preference over other competing products. This distinction between “preference” and 

“basic market demand” was clearly made in the International Harvester case. In the 

International Harvester case, the court stated that the proposed emission limits would 

be feasible even though they may result in the unavailability of certain kinds of vehicles 

and engine types people preferred (e.g. fast “muscle” cars), as long as the basic market 

demand for passenger cars could be generally met. Applying this principle to consumer 

products, the proposed amendments allow the basic market demand to be met for each 

product category, even though it may no longer be possible to manufacture products 

with some specific attributes. ARB staff believes that this approach complies with 

Health and Safety Code section 41712. 

D. REQUIREMENTS OF AB 32

AB 32 requires that ARB adopt regulations by January 1, 2010 to achieve the 

maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHGs. Among other 

things, the reductions must be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable. 

ARB is also required to adopt rules and regulations in an open, public process. In 

developing regulations to meet GHG reduction goals, in accordance with section 38562, 

certain criteria are to be met. These criteria are summarized here with our assessment 

as to why the proposed regulatory action meets them, or is not specifically applicable. 

In this rulemaking, we are proposing to regulate the GHG content for one 

category, Pressurized Gas Dusters. These products are used to clean computer parts 

and other sensitive electronics. Below is a discussion of why we believe that this 

rulemaking meets the requirements of State law. 

1. The State Board shall adopt rules and regulations in an open public 

process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective greenhouse gas emission reduction from sources or 

categories of sources. 

The proposal to reduce the potency of GHG emissions from Pressurized Gas 

Dusters was developed in consultation with affected parties in an open, public process 

through a public workshop and several individual consultation meetings. See 

Chapter II, Development of Proposed Amendments, for a description of the public 

process. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 18 

2. Design the regulations, including distribution of emissions 

allowances where appropriate, in a manner that is equitable, seeks to 

minimize costs and maximize the total benefits to California, and 

encourages early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Pressurized Gas Dusters proposed limit was set to maximize emission 

reductions uniformly through out the State, while minimizing costs. All manufacturers of 

Pressurized Gas Dusters, intended for sale in California, are required to meet the 

specified emission limit. No manufacturer or retailer would be allowed to sell 

non-complying products in California, therefore no user anywhere in California should 

be able to purchase non-complying products. Reductions in the potency of emissions 

will track with sales of Pressurized Gas Dusters. Therefore, as Pressurized Gas 

Dusters are used throughout the State, reductions would occur throughout the State. 

Greater reductions will likely occur in population centers. 

The cost-effectiveness (CE) of the proposed limit is about $0.22 per metric ton of 

carbon dioxide equivalents. See Chapter VII, Economic Impacts, for the detailed 

description. 

The emission limit yields the maximum technically feasible reduction in the 

potency of GHG. As set forth in Chapter VI, Description of Product Categories, 

Section B, Greenhouse Gas Categories, further reductions from this category were 

determined not to be technologically and commercially feasible. 

Nothing in the regulation discourages early action to reduce GHG emissions. In 

fact, many manufacturers have reduced the potency of GHG emissions over the last ten 

years by reformulating products to contain compounds with lower GWP. We expect this 

trend to continue prior to the effective date of the proposed emission limit. In addition to 

setting an effective date for the GWP limit, we are limiting to one year, the time product 

manufactured before the effective date can be sold. Once the sell-through period is 

over, the old product must be removed from store shelves. 

3. Ensure that activities undertaken to comply with the regulations do 

not disproportionately impact low-income communities. 

Use of consumer products is ubiquitous; no disproportionate localized impacts 

are expected. Greater reductions would occur in population centers, where more 

people reside. Compliance with this proposal will not require manufacturing plant 

changes that could cause a localized emission impact. Therefore, residents living near 

a plant producing or using Pressurized Gas Dusters, whether low-income or not, would 

not be disproportionately impacted. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 19 

4. Ensure that entities that have voluntarily reduced their greenhouse 

gas emissions prior to the implementation of this section receive 

appropriate credit for early voluntary reductions. 

This requirement is not applicable to this proposed rulemaking. 

5. Ensure that activities undertaken pursuant to the regulations 

complement, and do not interfere with, efforts to achieve and 

maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to 

reduce toxic air contaminant emissions. 

GHG limits from consumer products will be set only for categories where there 

would be no significant increase in the use of criteria pollutants or toxic air 

contaminants. For Pressurized Gas Dusters specifically, to prevent any possible 

increase in the emissions of criteria pollutants, a VOC limit of 1 percent by weight, 

including fragrance, is proposed. This VOC limit proposal will prevent manufacturers 

from replacing high GWP compounds with hydrocarbon propellants. While hydrocarbon 

propellants have low GWP, and would meet the GWP limit of 150, they contribute to the 

formation of ground-level ozone. In addition, a prohibition on the use of the toxic 

chlorinated compounds Methylene Chloride (MeCl) and Perchloroethylene (Perc) is 

proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. This prohibition will prevent manufacturers from 

using MeCl and Perc in Pressurized Gas Duster products. While unlikely, 

manufacturers could choose to use MeCl and/or Perc in Pressurized Gas Dusters 

because they are good solvents, have relatively low GWP, and are exempt as VOCs. 

The 1 percent VOC limit, and the prohibition of the use of MeCl and Perc, is consistent 

with the requirements under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA 

requires that adverse impacts from adopting regulations be mitigated. See Chapter VIII, 

Environmental Impacts, for a more detailed description. 

6. Consider cost-effectiveness of these regulations. 

The CE of the proposed limit is about $0.22 per metric ton of carbon dioxide 

equivalents. See Chapter VII, Economic Impacts, for the detailed description. 

7. Consider overall societal benefits, including reductions in other air 

pollutants, diversification of energy sources, and other benefits to 

the economy, environment, and public health. 

 

The proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters is not expected to 

cause any adverse impacts to society or the environment. California will benefit from 

the reduction of GHG emissions. As discussed in the response to criterion five above, 

the proposal will not cause an increase in VOC or toxic air contaminant emissions. See 

Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, for a detailed description. In addition, no increase 

in the solid waste stream is anticipated. Reformulated products will be at least as 

effective as non-complying products. Packaging and the number of cans used should 

not increase. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 20 

8. Minimize the administrative burden of implementing and complying 

with these regulations. 

The administrative burden of complying with the proposed emission limit to 

manufacturers and marketers is minimal. Product reformulation will require replacing 

one propellant with another, and should be fairly straight-forward. The proposal has 

very few administrative requirements. Affected products would be required to include 

on the label or can a date, or date code, indicating date of manufacture. No 

recordkeeping or product registration would be required. However, certain Pressurized 

Gas Dusters products may need to modify their product labels. The proposed modified 

definition for Pressurized Gas Dusters includes an exemption for products that are 

labeled to be used “exclusively on energized equipment.” To qualify for the exemption 

from the GWP and VOC limits, the product label must contain specific language. For 

existing products used on energized equipment that do not contain the language, 

administrative and other costs may be incurred in changing the labels. 

9. Minimize leakage. 

Leakage is not expected as a result of the proposed emission limitation for 

Pressurized Gas Dusters. Leakage occurs when an emission limit set by the State 

causes manufacturing or other activities to be displaced outside of California. If leakage 

were to occur, emissions, jobs and other economic benefits to California would be lost. 

The emission benefits of the proposed limit track with sales of Pressurized Gas Dusters. 

In addition, the proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters requires that all 

products manufactured for sale in California comply with the limit regardless of where 

they are manufactured. Therefore, there would not be a situation where a 

manufacturing plant inside the State would be at a competitive disadvantage compared 

to plants located outside of the State. 

10. Consider the significance of the contribution of each source or 

category of sources to statewide emissions of greenhouse gases. 

The projected reductions that will be achieved through implementation of the 

proposed limit are equivalent to reducing about 0.20 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent per year. While this reduction may appear somewhat modest, when 

the reduction is considered in conjunction with anticipated future GHG reductions from 

consumer products, and current and future reductions from other categories, the total 

reductions could become quite significant. The consumer products category 

encompasses hundreds of categories. When each is considered alone they are 

relatively small emitters, but with regard to GHG emissions the aggregate emissions 

may become more important. This situation necessitates achieving relatively small 

reductions from a large number of categories to achieve significant overall reductions. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 21 

11. The greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved are real, 

permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable by the state 

board. 

The emissions and emission reductions for Pressurized Gas Dusters were 

calculated based on data submitted by manufacturers and marketers of the affected 

products. The data were submitted in accordance with State law and were certified by 

an officer of each company that submitted the data. The GHG emissions and 

reductions were calculated based on GWP values defined by the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change 1995: Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996). The 

Consumer Products Regulation specifies the date upon which the proposed emission 

limit would become effective and further specifies how the emission limit is to be 

enforced. Further, the regulation specifies the test methods used to determine if 

products comply with the applicable emission standards. Finally, the regulation requires 

that products subject to emission limits must be dated or date coded. The date of 

manufacture enables enforcement personnel to ascertain if a product is subject to the 

applicable emission limit, based on the limit effective date. Once the amendments to 

the Consumer Products Regulation are approved by the Office of Administrative Law, 

the proposed emission limit will become State law. Based on the above, upon the 

effective date of the proposed emission limit, the reductions become real, permanent, 

quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable. 

12. For regulations.... ....the reduction is in addition to any greenhouse 

gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and 

any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would 

occur. 

While many manufacturers have shifted from HFC-134a to HFC-152a resulting in 

a reduction in emission potency, HFC-134a products remain on the market. Therefore, 

the emission reductions, realized by requiring that most of the remaining Pressurized 

Gas Dusters reformulate, are new and would not have occurred in the absence of the 

proposed limit. The proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters is the first 

emission limitation affecting the product category. No other existing State, federal or 

other requirements, specific to products sold in California, affecting emissions of GHG 

from Pressurized Gas Dusters exist. We are aware of requirements affecting GHG 

emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters products sold in the state of Wisconsin, but 

those requirements do not affect products sold in California. 

13. If applicable, the greenhouse gas emission reduction occurs over the 

same time period and is equivalent in amount to any direct emission 

reduction required pursuant to this division. 

This requirement is not specifically applicable to the proposed emission limit for 

Pressurized Gas Dusters. The emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters is in fact a 

direct emission limit. There are no proposals for any market based or other “flexibilitybased” compliance options for the proposed emission limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 22 

14. The state board shall rely upon the best available economic and 

scientific information and its assessment of existing and projected 

technological capabilities when adopting the regulations required by 

the law. 

 ARB staff used the best available economic and scientific information available to 

develop the proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters. The description in 

this Section B documents that the proposal was developed in accordance with 

AB 32 requirements. Chapter VII, Economic Impacts, contains a detailed description of 

the economic impact of the proposed emission limit. In addition, a rigorous 

technological assessment of Pressurized Gas Dusters was performed. See the detailed 

technical discussion in Chapter VI, Description of Product Categories, Section B, 

Categories for Which a Greenhouse Gas Limit is Proposed, Subsection 1, Pressurized 

Gas Duster. 

E. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

 Manufacturers of non-complying products will need to reformulate their products 

to meet the applicable VOC or GWP limits. Manufacturers have the flexibility to choose 

any formulation that meets the applicable limit and the reformulation options vary with 

each product category (see Chapter VI of the Technical Support Document). To comply 

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

replaced, with non-VOC ingredients. This may require switching to a water-based 

formulation, using acetone or another exempt solvent, increasing product solids, or 

formulating with a non-VOC propellant. Manufacturers may also need to change the 

valve, container, delivery system, or the other components of the consumer product 

depending on the individual formulation. ARB staff has proposed VOC limits that can 

be met without the increased use of toxic air contaminants. 

To meet the GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster, manufacturers of 

non-complying products will need to substitute a lower GWP propellant for the currently 

used higher GWP propellant. We expect that manufacturers will substitute HFC-152a 

for HFC-134a. We are also proposing a VOC limit for Pressurized Gas Duster products 

to ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as products reformulate. Because 

HFC- 152a is an exempt VOC meeting a 1 percent VOC limit is very feasible. 

 Table III-1 summarizes, for the proposed VOC limits, data related to the 

complying market-shares (based on sales), as well as the number of products that 

currently comply relative to total number of products reported. 

 Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed amendments through the use 

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

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

Products Regulation if they demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that 

their product will result in less VOC emissions than a complying product that meets the 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 23 

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

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

 The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissions from products above 

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

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

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

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

and other information necessary to track overall emissions. 

 Table III-1 shows that the complying marketshares (except where confidential) 

range from 3 to 100 percent. Generally, in those categories where the complying 

marketshare is low, more time is provided to comply with the limit. 

 Although not shown in Table III-1, 86 percent of reported products (based on 

sales) comply with the GWP limit for the Pressurized Gas Duster category. Moreover, 

18 of 90 products currently comply with the GWP limit of 150. Based on these 

complying marketshares and the number of complying products, staff believes the 

proposed VOC and GHG limits are commercially and technologically feasible. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 24 

Table III-1 

 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares

 Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(weight %) 

Number of 

Complying 

Products/ 

Total 

Complying 

Market 

Share (%) 

Astringent / Toner (non-FDA regulated) All 35 177 / 203 70 

Aerosol 5 7 / 59 10 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Nonaerosol 1 54 / 117 25 

Aerosol 17 13 / 41 5 

Dusting Aid Nonaerosol 3 33 / 38 74 

Fabric Protectant Nonaerosol 1 42 / 63 95 

Fabric Softener – 

 Single Use Dryer Product All 

0.05 

grams per 

use* 

20 / 26 24 

Floor Maintenance Product All 1 57 / 98 53 

Floor Polish or Wax – 

 Wood Floor Wax All 70 *** / 7 *** 

Glass Cleaner Aerosol 10 32 / 95 37 

Motor Vehicle Wash All 0.2 311 / 366 89 

All 25 38 / 176 4 Multi-purpose Lubricant – 

 excluding solid & semisolid All 10 22 / 176 3 

Aerosol 25 *** / *** 100 

Odor Remover/Eliminator Nonaerosol 6 154 / 184 82 

Penetrant All 25 14 / 84 30 

Personal Fragrance Product (products with 

20% or less fragrance) All 75** 679 / 1101 37 

Pressurized Gas Duster All 1 89 / 90 > 99 

Chemically Curing Nonaerosol Sealant or 3 95 / 196 23 

Caulking 

Compound Non-Chemically 

Curing 

Nonaerosol 1.5 201 / 344 76 

Aerosol 15 18 / 70 4 

Spot Remover Nonaerosol 3 231 / 261 94 

Aerosol 8 *** / 8 *** 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner Nonaerosol 2 63 / 102 69 

Windshield Water Repellant All 75 *** / 30 *** 

Source: 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a) grown to 2008, and the 2007 

 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update 

* Grams per use limit provides emissions reductions equivalent to 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit, 

 including fragrance 

** Remove “Grandfather” clauses 

*** Omitted to protect confidentiality 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 25 

REFERENCES 

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. 

Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. 

Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: 

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007) 

2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995, The 

Science of Climate Change; Contribution of Working Group I to the Second 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. 

Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and 

 K. Maskell, eds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K. (IPCC, 1996)
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 26 

IV. EMISSIONS

 California’s extreme air quality problems require unique strategies for improving 

air quality and slowing climate change. In this Chapter, we provide an overview of 

criteria pollutant air quality and climate change problems, which are germane to the 

regulation of consumer products. We also describe the need for significant emission 

reductions from all sources contributing to these problems. This Chapter includes a 

description of the need for the regulation of consumer products and provides a 

summary of the emissions from the categories proposed for regulation. For a detailed 

summary of the product categories, the reader is referred to Chapter VI. 

A. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been established to protect 

California’s population from the harmful effects of ozone and particulate matter (PM). 

An ambient air quality standard sets legal limits on the level of an air pollutant in the 

outdoor (ambient) air necessary to protect public health. Both ARB and U.S. EPA are 

authorized to set standards. 

Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products contribute 

to the formation of both ozone and fine PM. Other sources of VOCs include emissions 

from fuel combustion, coatings and paints. PM pollution is the result of both direct and 

indirect emissions. Direct sources of PM include emissions from fuel combustion and 

wind erosion of soil. Indirect PM emissions result from the chemical reaction of VOCs, 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides and other chemicals in the atmosphere. 

 1. Ozone 

 Ozone formation in the lower atmosphere results from a series of chemical 

reactions between VOCs and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. The rate of 

ozone generation is related closely to both the amount and reactivity of VOC emissions 

as well as the amount of NOx emissions available in the atmosphere 

(Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). Ozone is a colorless gas and the chief component of 

urban smog. It is one of the State’s more persistent air quality problems. Ninety-three 

percent of Californians, or 36 million people, live in areas designated as non-attainment 

for the federal eight-hour ozone standard. California experienced 41 percent of the total 

national ozone exposure, based on analysis of population exposure conducted by ARB 

staff for the years 2000 through 2002 (ARB, 2006b). California occupies the top five 

spots and has six out of the top ten areas with the highest levels of ozone (2004 design 

values). 

 It has been well documented that ozone adversely affects respiratory function of 

humans and animals. Human health studies show that short-term exposure to ozone 

injures the lung (ARB, 2005, 2000a; U.S. EPA, 2006). In some animal studies, 

permanent structural changes with long-term exposures to ozone concentrations 

considerably above ambient were seen; these changes remain even after periods of 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 27 

exposure to clean air (U.S. EPA, 2006). Exposure to levels of ozone above the current 

ambient air quality standard can lead to lung inflammation, lung tissue damage, and a 

reduction in the amount of air inhaled into the lungs. 

 Ozone is a strong irritant that can cause constriction of the muscle cells in the 

airways that result in symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, 

and increased asthma symptoms (ARB, 2005). Recent evidence suggests that ozone 

may be linked to the onset of new asthma in very active children 

(McConnell et al., 2002). Ozone has also been associated with premature death. 

Based on 2001-03, premature deaths from ozone exposure in California are estimated 

at 630 (ARB, 2005). Ozone in sufficient doses can also increase the permeability of 

lung cells, rendering them more susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. Other health 

effects associated with ozone exposure include hospitalizations and school absences. 

Of course, the greatest risk from ozone exposure is to those who are active outdoors 

during smoggy periods, such as children, athletes, and outdoor workers. 

 Not only does ozone adversely affect human and animal health, but it also affects 

vegetation, throughout most of California, resulting in reduced yield and quality in 

agricultural crops, disfiguration or unsatisfactory growth in ornamental vegetation, and 

damage to native plants. During the summer, ozone levels are often highest in the 

urban centers in Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Valley, 

which are adjacent to the principal production areas in the State’s multibillion-dollar 

agricultural industry (USDA, 2006). ARB studies indicate that ozone pollution damage 

to crops is estimated to cost agriculture over $500 million dollars annually (ARB, 1987; 

ARB, 2006b). 

 2. Fine Particulate Matter 

 PM is a complex mixture of tiny particles that may consist of dry solid fragments, 

solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly 

in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different 

materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust. As described above, PM can be directly 

emitted from sources, such as diesel PM, or can be produced indirectly from sources 

which emit precursors that are converted to PM by atmospheric processes. Particles 

10 micrometers or less in diameter are defined as "respirable particulate matter" or 

"PM10.” PM10 and particles 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5) can be inhaled 

deep into the lungs. PM2.5 contributes significantly to regional haze and reduction of 

visibility in California. Besides reducing visibility, the acidic portion of PM (nitrates, 

sulfates) can harm crops, forests, aquatic and other ecosystems (ARB, 2002). 

 Considerable epidemiologic research over the past 15 years has investigated the 

responses of humans to PM. The principal health effects of PM exposure are 

summarized below: 

• Many studies have consistently found statistical associations between PM2.5 and 

premature death with both long-term (Pope et al., 2004; Pope et al., 2002; 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 28 

Krewski et al., 2000; Laden et al., 2006) and daily exposures (e.g., Dominici et 

al., 2005; Dominici et al .2003; Schwartz et al., 2003; Laden et al., 2000). The 

association with premature mortality is considerably stronger for annual average 

PM2.5 exposure than for daily average PM2.5. That is, long-term exposure appears 

to pose a greater risk of death than short-term exposure. 

• A recent study suggests that long-term exposure to PM2.5 may influence the risk 

of adverse cardiovascular events in women (Miller et al., 2007), including 

hospitalization or death from heart attack or stroke. 

• Daily exposure to PM2.5 has been associated with hospitalization for heart and 

lung related causes (Moolgavkar, 2003; Schwartz et al., 2003; Zanobetti et al., 

2003). Others have found that exposure to PM2.5 resulted in increased 

emergency room visits; exacerbation of asthma, and other respiratory diseases 

(Peel et al., 2005; Sheppard et al., 2003). Other research indicates that 

exposure to PM2.5 leads to increased asthma medication usage (Gent et al., 

2003), and increased asthma symptoms (e.g., Delfino et al., 2002; Whittemore 

and Korn, 1980). Exposure to PM2.5 has also been associated with increased 

work loss days (Ostro et al., 1993; Ostro et al., 1989). 

• Older adults with pre-existing chronic heart or lung disease are at greatest risk of 

experiencing adverse effects related to PM2.5 exposure (Moolgavkar, 2003; 

Dominici et al., 2006; Symons et al., 2006). 

 There is some evidence suggesting that air pollution may have greater effects in 

children than in adults. This may be because they inhale more PM2.5 per pound of body 

weight than do adults, and because they breathe more rapidly than adults. Adverse 

effects reported in children include reduced lung function and growth in higher pollution 

areas (Gauderman et al., 2004; Gauderman et al., 2002; Gauderman et al., 2000) that 

may at least partially reverse if the child moves to an area with cleaner air (Avol et al., 

2001); increased asthma and bronchitis symptoms (Gauderman et al., 2005; et al., 

1999); increased school absenteeism (Gilliland et al., 2001); and increased risk of 

acquiring asthma for children who engage in three or more outdoor sports and live in 

areas with high ozone concentrations (McConnell et al., 2002). 

 

 3. Ambient Air Quality Standards 

In April 2005, the Board reviewed California's one-hour peak standard for ozone 

and determined that it alone was not sufficiently protecting public health. Consequently, 

ARB adopted a new eight-hour ozone standard of 0.070 parts per million (ppm) 

averaged over eight hours, while retaining the existing one-hour ozone standard at 

0.09 ppm. Regarding particulate matter, the Board adopted stricter standards in 2002, 

which include a PM10 annual average standard of 20 micrograms per cubic meter 

(μg/m3) and a new annual average PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m3. The State PM10

standard for a 24-hour period remains at 50 μg/m3. The national and State ambient air 

quality standards for ozone and PM are shown in Table IV-1. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 29 

Table IV-1 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 

Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard National Standard

Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm 

(180 μg/m3) 

--------- 

8 hour 0.070 ppm 

(137 μg/m3) 

0.075 ppm* 

( 147 μg/m3) 

PM10

24 hour 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 

50 μg/m3 

20 μg/m3

150 μg/m3 

--------- 

PM2.5

24 hour 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 

--------- 

12 μg/m3

35 μg/m3 

15 μg/m3

Source: Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards April 1, 2008 (ARB, 2008a). 

 * This standard became effective on March 12, 2008. The 2007 SIP demonstrates attainment with 

 the previous standard of 0.08ppm. 

Table IV-1 reflects the newly revised national eight-hour standard for ozone of 

0.075 ppm, which was promulgated on March 12, 2008. The U.S. EPA’s rescission of 

its one-hour ozone standard is also reflected (U.S. EPA, 1997). Despite these revisions 

to the national standards, Table IV-1 clearly shows that California's standards for PM 

and ozone continue to be more heath protective than those at the federal level. 

 

4. Area Designations for California Ambient Air Ozone Standard. 

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 has the fundamental goal that all 

areas of California are to attain the State ambient air quality standards for ozone by the 

earliest practicable date. As specified in the CCAA ARB has designated areas of 

California to be in "attainment" or "non-attainment" for the State ozone standards. 

For the year 2007, Figure IV-1 shows the counties designated as non-attainment (or 

non-attainment-transitional, which is a subcategory of non-attainment) for the State 

ozone standard. As shown, unhealthy levels of ozone are not limited to urban areas, 

but can be found in nearly every county in California. This map clearly indicates the 

extent and magnitude of the ozone problem in California. 

The areas that are non-attainment for the State ozone standards are also nonattainment for the previous 0.08 ppm federal eight-hour ozone standard. The federal 

non-attainment designations include a number of rural Sierra Nevada foothill counties 

and additional parts of the Sacramento Valley. The federal one-hour standard was 

revoked on June 15, 2005, one year after the effective date of the designations. SIPs 

showing how each non-attainment area will meet the 0.08 ppm eight-hour ozone 

standard were submitted in 2007. In order to maintain progress towards clean air, the 

federal Clean Air Act prohibits backsliding on the control program. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 30 

Figure IV-1 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 31 

 Recent air quality trends have shown that progress is being made towards 

achieving the State ozone standard. For the South Coast Air Basin all of the ozone 

statistics show an overall steady decline, as seen in Figure IV-2. The 2005 three-year 

average of the maximum eight-hour concentration is almost 41 percent lower than 1985. 

Also, the number of days above the standards has declined dramatically. The 

downward trend for both the eight-hour and one-hour ozone concentrations is similar 

(ARB, 2007g). 

Figure IV-2 

South Coast Air Basin Ozone Trend 

 Source: ARB 2007 Almanac 

 The ozone problem in the San Joaquin Valley ranks among the most severe in 

the State. Peak levels have not declined as much as the number of days that standards 

are exceeded. From 1985 to 2004, the maximum peak eight-hour indicator decreased 

only two percent. The number of national eight-hour standard exceedance days has 

been quite variable over the years. This variability is due, in part, to the influence of 

meteorology as well as changes to the monitoring network. The monitoring network 

was not as extensive during the 1980’s as it has been during the last 14 years. For this 

reason, the period between 1990 to 2005 provides a better indication of trends. During 

this period, there has been an eight percent decrease in the three-year average of the 

number of exceedance days of the national eight-hour standard (ARB, 2007g). 

Figure IV-3 shows the ozone trend between years 1986 and 2006. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 32 

Figure IV-3 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Ozone Trend 

Source: ARB 2007 Almanac 

 Despite over 25 years of regulatory efforts and the decline of smog levels in 

areas such as the South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin Air Basin, ozone 

continues to be an important environmental and health concern in California and more 

emission reductions are necessary. The State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan addresses the State measures necessary to meet the previous 

national ozone standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 

5. Area Designations for California Ambient Air PM2.5 Standard 

Figure IV-4 shows the counties designated as non-attainment for the State PM2.5 

standard. As with ozone, unhealthy levels of PM2.5 are not limited to urban areas, but 

can be found in many counties throughout California. 

Related to the federal PM2.5 standard, in December 2007, ARB submitted nonattainment area recommendations and appropriate boundaries to U.S. EPA, in 

response to the new federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m3 established on 

December 18, 2006. The non-attainment area recommendations are based on 

2004-2006 PM2.5 air quality monitoring data. ARB recommended that the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVAPCD), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the 

Sacramento Air Quality Management District, the combined cities of Yuba 

City/Marysville, the city of Chico, and the city of Calexico be designated as non-
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 33 

attainment for the new 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Thus, most of the areas shown in 

Figure IV-4 are also non-attainment for the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The 

SCAQMD SIP was approved by the Board in September, 2007 and it was submitted to 

U.S. EPA in November, 2007. The PM2.5 SIP for SJVAPCD is expected to be 

considered at the May Board meeting. 

Figure IV-4 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 34 

B. THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006 

Scientists have concluded that the evidence is overwhelming that the planet is 

warming from the higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

Although greenhouse gases (GHG) are naturally occurring, the steep increase in these 

heat-trapping gases since the Industrial Revolution leaves very little doubt that human 

activity is to blame for these recent climate change trends. The fact that GHGs remain 

in the atmosphere for a very long time, and that man-made emissions of GHGs are 

continuing to increase, mean that the world will continue to warm in the centuries 

ahead. This warming, or climate change, is a global problem. Clearly, no single state 

or country can single-handedly solve the problem. However, California is stepping 

forward to do its part. To address the problem, Assembly Bill 32, the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), was signed into law by the Governor in 

September 2006. By enacting this Legislation, the legislature declared: 

“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, 

natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse 

impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a 

reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra 

snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of 

coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the 

natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, 

asthma, and other human health-related problems.” 

This legislation is codified in the California Health and Safety Code, commencing 

with section 38500. Beyond the AB 32 requirements the Governor’s Executive Order 

EO-S-03-05 calls for an additional 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. 

While carbon dioxide (CO2) is the GHG emitted in the largest quantity, other

GHGs include, but are not limited to, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs). Related to the role of consumer products, HFCs are the primary source of 

GHG emissions. To a lesser extent hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) and 

hydrofluoroethers (HFE) play a role. 

1. Climate Change 

Climate change, or global warming, is the process whereby emissions of 

anthropogenic pollutants, together with other naturally-occurring gases, absorb infrared 

radiation in the atmosphere, leading to increases in the overall average global 

temperature. The standard definition of “greenhouse gas” includes, but is not limited to, 

six substances as identified in the Kyoto Protocol; carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6). Changes in the atmospheric abundance of GHGs alter the energy balance of the 

climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing. While CO2

is the largest contributor to radiative forcing, methane, halocarbon, N2O, and other 

species also contribute to climate change. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 35 

Controlling multiple substances that jointly contribute to climate warming requires 

some method to compare the effects of the different gases because the physical 

properties (climate warming impact and persistence in the atmosphere) of the GHGs 

are very different. The current solution to this problem is the calculation made by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), known as Global Warming 

Potentials (GWP) (IPCC, 2007; IPCC, 1996). The basic idea is to calculate the 

cumulative climate warming over a specified time span resulting from one unit mass of 

the GHG emitted. The estimates of GWPs have extensively been reviewed by many 

climate scientists around the world. The IPCC is constantly evaluating GWP values and 

the assessment is generally updated every 6 years. 

By convention, the GWP index is defined relative to CO2 which has a GWP of 1. 

The Second Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC, 1996), defines the GWP of a GHG as 

the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing impact from an instantaneous release of 

1 kilogram (kg) of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of CO2. The standard units 

of measurement used to express the emissions of a GHG is, million metric tons of CO2

equivalents (MMT CO2e) per year. 

The GWP values used by ARB are generally the 1996 SAR GWP values (ARB, 

2007c). These values are used when converting emissions of GHGs to carbon dioxide 

equivalent values (CO2e). The SAR GWP values are used to be consistent with the 

Board’s Discrete Early Action Report, other statewide and national GHG inventories, 

and the upcoming Scoping Plan. 

The climate warming impact from emissions of GHGs is the product of two 

factors: (1) the mass of GHG emitted, and (2) its warming potential. In addition to 

uncertainty in the mass of emissions, there is also uncertainty in attributes of warming 

potential (as a function of direct and indirect warming impacts and the atmospheric 

lifetime) and thus in the assessment of GWP. 

The GWP of a compound may reflect a direct effect as well as an indirect effect 

on global warming. The direct effect is the warming due to the absorption of radiation 

by molecules of the compound in question. VOCs, CO2, and HFCs all have direct 

effects. The indirect effect is due to the impact that the presence of the compound has 

on the concentration of other GHGs. For example, VOCs contribute indirectly to global 

warming, because they react chemically in the atmosphere to increase greenhouse gas 

concentrations of ozone and methane. While VOCs do have direct effects, they are 

considered GHGs primarily because of their role in creating ozone, and in prolonging 

the life of methane in the atmosphere. For consumer products, as mentioned earlier, 

direct emissions of HFCs are the primary concern. HCFCs, HFEs, CO2, and N2O are 

also compounds of interest. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 36 

2. Predicted Climate Change Impacts 

Global average temperatures have risen both on land and in the oceans, with 

observable impacts already occurring. Scientists predict that if the increase in GHG 

emissions continues unabated, temperatures will rise by as much as 10 degrees 

Fahrenheit by the end of this century (Pew, 2006). It is impossible to predict exactly 

how climate change will affect California's ecosystems and economy in the future. 

However, the expected physical changes will impact California's public health, economy 

and ecology. There are many areas of concern. 

One area of considerable concern is the effect of climate change on California's 

water supply. During the winter, in our mountains, snow accumulates in a deep pack, 

preserving much of California's water supply. If winter temperatures are warmer 

however, more precipitation will fall as rain, decreasing the size of the snowpack. 

Heavier rainfall in the winter could bring increased flooding. Less spring runoff from a 

smaller snowpack will reduce the amount of water available for hydroelectric power 

production and agricultural irrigation. Evidence of this problem already exists. 

Throughout the 20th century, annual April to July spring runoff in the Sierra Nevada has 

been decreasing, with water runoff declining by about ten percent over the last 

100 years. 

Another predicted outcome of climate change is a rise in sea level. California 

has already experienced a 3 to 8 inch rise in the last century. If the trend continues, 

large populations living along California's coast will face serious consequences such as 

flooding of low-lying property, loss of coastal wetlands, erosion of cliffs and beaches, 

saltwater contamination of drinking water, and damage to roads and bridges. 

Air quality will also be exacerbated by increasing temperatures. Higher 

temperatures, strong sunlight, and stable air masses could lead to increased 

concentrations of ground-level ozone. 

Climate change could impact California agriculture by increasing demand for 

irrigation to meet higher evaporative demand, while supply will become less reliable due 

to declining snowpack in the mountains. Climate change will also put our forests at 

greater risk for fire and disease (ARB, 2003). 

3. Discrete Early Action Plan and Scoping Plan 

Among other things, AB 32 requires ARB to design and adopt an overall Scoping 

Plan, by January 1, 2009, that identifies how GHG emissions can be reduced back to 

1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 additionally recognizes that immediate progress in 

reducing GHG emissions can and should be made. Accordingly, AB 32 required ARB 

to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” by June 30, 2007. 

Discrete Early Actions are Board adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions which 

are legally effective by January 1, 2010. These measures are to become part of the 

State’s comprehensive strategy for achieving GHG reductions. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 37 

 In June 2007, the ARB approved a list of early action GHG reduction measures. 

Additions to the list were approved by the Board at its October 2007 hearing. A subset 

of these early action measures was identified as discrete early action measures. One of 

the approved Discrete Early Action Measures designated in the Early Action Report 

calls for the reduction in use of compounds with high GWP in consumer products. The 

measure is estimated to achieve an emission reduction of 0.25 MMT CO2e per year 

from consumer products (ARB, 2007b). 

 The objective of the consumer products Discrete Early Action measure is to 

reduce the impact of compounds with high GWPs when alternatives are available. 

Consumer product formulations may be required to reduce or eliminate the use of 

GHGs with high GWPs. The primary compounds of interest are HFCs. These 

compounds have direct impacts on global warming. As mentioned previously, VOCs 

have an indirect effect on increasing temperatures, in that they participate in reactions 

leading to the formation of ground level ozone. Therefore, our VOC reduction strategies 

for consumer products will also reduce the impact of consumer products’ emissions on 

climate change. 

 The reduction in use of compounds with high GWPs in consumer products is a 

long-term effort. We are continuing to develop an emission inventory. Thus, we are 

unable to quantify what the overall total GWP emission reduction will be at this time. As 

we move forward, evaluate product categories, and identify areas where emission 

reductions are possible, we will quantify additional emission reductions as GWP limits 

are adopted. However, we expect to achieve the estimated reduction of 

0.25 MMT CO2e per year through this and subsequent rulemakings.

 In this rulemaking, we are making our initial proposal to reduce GHGs in 

consumer products. We are proposing a GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster 

products. If adopted by ARB, this will be the first GWP standard in place for consumer 

products in California. ARB staff estimates the reduction from this measure to be 

equivalent to reducing 0.20 MMT CO2 per year. 

C. IMPORTANCE OF REGULATING CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

As described in Section A and Section B of this Chapter, consumer products 

emissions contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, PM2.5, and climate change. 

In this section, we provide information on the importance of regulating these emissions. 

 1. VOC Emissions 

Consumer products are a significant source of VOC emissions in California. This 

section focuses on reducing emissions from consumer products as a ground-level 

ozone control strategy. Although each consumer product may seem to be a small 

source of emissions, the cumulative use of these products by over 37 million 

Californians results in significant emissions (CA DOF, 2007). Given the severity of the 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 38 

air pollution problems in California further dramatic emission reductions from all sources 

contributing to ground-level ozone are necessary. 

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

estimated that in 2010 consumer products emissions will be approximately 243 tons per 

day, or about 12 percent of the overall VOC inventory. In this same year, consumer 

product emissions will comprise about 18 and 7 percent of VOC emissions in the 

SCAQMD and SJVAPCD, respectively. Without further actions, consumer product 

emissions are expected to grow to approximately 270 tons per day in 2020, 

representing 14 percent of statewide VOC emissions. (ARB, 2007h). 

As control measures for other VOC sources (i.e. mobile sources) become 

effective, consumer product emissions become more important in the SCAQMD. In 

fact, it is estimated that emissions from consumer products will be the number one 

source of VOC emissions in the South Coast AQMD in 2020. However, using the 

maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) scale (see title 17, CCR section 94700-94701) as 

the basis for comparison, consumer product emissions are over two times less reactive 

than are emissions from on-road motor vehicles. Regardless of the ozone-forming 

potential of various source categories, clearly, further reductions in VOC emissions from 

consumer products and other VOC sources are needed, if ozone attainment is to be 

achieved and maintained. 

Despite these projections, ARB’s consumer products program is a success story. 

Since 1989, regulations adopted by the ARB, along with numerous amendments to the 

regulations, have significantly reduced VOC emissions from consumer products. 

Absent these regulations today, consumer product emissions would likely be over 

440 tons per day. Figure IV-5 shows that statewide consumer product VOC emissions 

have been reduced by over 200 tons per day in 2010. However, Figure IV-5 also shows 

that without further actions population growth would likely reverse the trend. 

The emission values in Figure IV-5 are derived from several data sources. 

The 1990 to 2006 emissions are taken from the ARB Forecasted Emissions by 

Summary Category, 2007 Almanac (ARB 2007h). Emissions are then grown in 

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

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

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

categories regulated in the 2006 Consumer Products Amendments, emission values 

from the 2003 Survey and the projected emissions reductions resulting from the VOC 

limits approved in 2006, are reflected in Figure IV-5. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 39 

230

260

290

320

350

380

410

440

470

500

530

560

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Year

Emissions (tpd)

Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th an d e m ission red uctions )

Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th o nly )

200 tpd

*Includes 2006 CP Regulation Amendments Data

Figure IV-5 

Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends 

As shown in Figure IV-5, the important emission reductions that have been 

realized from the ARB’s Consumer Products Program are beginning to be partially 

offset by population growth. California’s population is expected to grow to 40 million by 

2010 (CA DOF, 2007). Therefore, ARB must continue its commitment to pursue 

additional technologically and commercially feasible reductions in consumer products 

emissions. 

In 1988, with the passing of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the importance 

of controlling emissions from consumer products was set forth. To meet California 

ambient air quality standards the CCAA added section 41712 to the Health and Safety 

Code. This section requires that ARB adopt regulations to achieve the maximum 

feasible reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer products. As part of the regulatory 

process, ARB must determine that adequate data exist to adopt the regulations. ARB 

must also determine that the regulations are technologically and commercially feasible, 

necessary, and do not eliminate any product form. 

To meet the federal standards, in 1994 emission reductions from consumer 

products became part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In 

this SIP, consumer products measures were put in place to work towards attaining the 

federal one-hour ambient air quality standard for ozone. In 2003, ARB again reiterated 

the commitment to reduce consumer products VOC emissions to meet the one-hour 

federal ozone standard. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 40 

In response to these mandates, three regulations with 150 VOC limits for 

115 categories of consumer products (including antiperspirants and deodorants and 

36 aerosol coatings categories) have been established to date. The adopted limits will 

achieve a 44 percent reduction in overall VOC emissions from consumer products by 

the year 2010. 

In 2007, a new SIP was adopted. This State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (Strategy) includes California’s plan to attain the national ozone 

standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. The consumer products commitment 

in this strategy supplements the 1994 and 2003 commitments. In the Strategy, ARB 

has committed to an additional 30 to 40 ton per day VOC reduction from consumer 

products by 2014. As planned, rulemakings are to occur between 2007 and 2008 with 

reductions occurring in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe. Further rulemakings between 2010 

and 2012, with implementation dates between 2012 to 2014, are to complete the 

emission reduction commitment (ARB, 2007d). This will continue ARB’s commitment to 

reduce VOC emissions from consumer products. As previously mentioned, consumer 

products are expected to become the largest source of VOC emissions in the South 

Coast Air Basin, and the third largest source in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin by 

2020. 

The Strategy also acknowledges that VOC reductions from consumer products 

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

commitment to explore innovative reduction strategies in the longer term. These 

measures would include investigating emission reduction opportunities through 

reactivity-based standards and alternative market-based mechanisms. If these 

mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reductions from the consumer 

products source category, then other approaches would be evaluated. Some of these 

approaches include the purchase of VOC credits; and funding of special projects to 

reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from pollution sources outside of the 

consumer products industry. 

Because significant further VOC reductions are necessary to attain the federal 

ozone standard, the reductions from the amendments proposed in this report are 

therefore “necessary” within the meaning of section 41712 of the Health and Safety 

Code. In addition, section 41712(b)(1) of the Health and Safety Code provides that a 

regulation’s “necessity” is to be evaluated in terms of both the State and federal 

standards. 

The applicable State and federal laws show that both the U.S. Congress and the 

California Legislature intended progress toward clean air to be made as quickly as 

possible. The CCAA specifically declares that it is the intent of the Legislature that the 

State air quality standards be achieved “...by the earliest practicable date...” (See Health 

and Safety Code, sections 40910 and 40913(a); see also the uncodified section 1(b)(2) 

of the Act (Stats. 1988, Chapter 1568)). A similar intent is expressed in the federal 

Clean Air Act, which declares that the federal air quality standards are to be achieved 

“...as expeditiously as practicable...” (See sections 172(a)(2), 181(a), and 188(c) of the 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 41 

federal Clean Air Act). For all of the reasons described above, the proposed 

amendments are “necessary” within the meaning of section 41712 of the Health and 

Safety Code. 

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are intended to partially fulfill the 

2007 Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from consumer products. 

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

We acknowledge that the GHG contribution of consumer products is modest 

relative to other sources, such as vehicle exhaust. However, the severity of the problem 

requires reductions from any source where it is feasible. While staff is still in the process 

of developing the consumer product GHG inventory, we do know from past surveys that 

several GHGs are used in consumer products. 

Consumer products use various GHGs, mostly as propellants. To a much lesser 

degree, several solvents with fairly high GWPs are used. These compounds are 

typically low photochemically reactive compounds that are non-VOCs and have been 

used as a reformulation strategy to reduce VOC content. Compounds of interest include 

HFCs, HCFCs, HFEs, CO2, and N2O. However, the propellants HFC-134a and 

HFC-152a are the predominate GHGs used in consumer products today. In instances 

where flammability is a concern, HFC-134a is used. HFC-134a is a non-flammable 

propellant, whereas HFC-152a is minimally flammable. Compressed CO2 is also used 

as a propellant, but the GHG emissions are negligible compared to the emissions from 

HFCs. Table IV-2 shows some examples of GHGs that are used in consumer products. 

Table IV-2 

Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds used in Consumer Products 

Compound SAR GWP* FAR GWP** 

CO2 1 1 

HFE-7200 N/A 59 

HFC-152a 140 124 

HCFC-141b N/A 725 

HFC-134a 1300 1430 

HFC-43 10mee 1300 1640 

* 100 year timeframe, SAR value 

** 100 year timeframe, FAR value 

 

As shown in Table IV-2, HFC-152a has a GWP of 140, while HFC-134a has a 

GWP of 1300. The value for HFC-134a is approximately ten times greater than the 

GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO2. Reductions of HFC-134a are 

being pursued in this rulemaking. 

 GHG emissions data are available from the 2003 Survey of consumer products. 

Staff has evaluated these data for possible GHG reductions and development of new 

regulations for this rulemaking. Additionally, in the 2006 Survey, we surveyed 

manufacturers of consumer products to determine the usage of compounds with high 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 42 

GWP in several more categories of consumer products (ARB, 2007f). Staff will use the 

2006 survey data to develop the GHG inventory for consumer products, and evaluate 

the data for product categories where compounds with high GWP are used to determine 

if there is a potential to reduce them without increasing the use of VOCs. 

Because reductions are necessary to slow climate change, the reductions from 

the amendments proposed in this report are necessary. The California Global Warming 

Solutions Act of 2006, by specifying adoption of Discrete Early Action Measures in 

Health and Safety Code section 38560, shows that the California Legislature intended 

progress toward reducing GHGs be made as quickly as possible. Because GHG 

reductions from consumer products have been designated as a Discrete Early Action 

Measure, to comply with State law, the proposed amendment to reduce the use of 

compounds with high GWP is necessary. 

D. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORIES PROPOSED TO BE 

REGULATED 

1. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey 

 The 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Survey) was 

mailed to over 5,000 companies in November 2004 (Appendix D). Data received from 

the 2003 Survey formed the basis for the emissions used in this rulemaking. 

A complete discussion of the extensive survey process is found in Chapter IV of “The 

Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation and the 

Aerosol Coatings Regulation” released on September 29, 2006 (the 2006 

Amendments). 

 In summary, the 2003 Survey provided staff with detailed information on the 

formulations of consumer products, including complete speciation of VOCs, low vapor 

pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) solvents, and key exempt ingredients (ARB, 2004a). Total 

volumes of inorganic and other compounds were also provided. Information on sales, 

product form, customer types, and company size and economics were also requested. 

 ARB provided extensive summaries to industry detailing the aggregate sales, 

VOC speciation, VOC tonnage, and other key information. Summary tables were also 

provided (certain specific data were omitted to protect confidential information) detailing 

VOC content, product form, LVP-VOC content, and other information. The results of the 

2003 Survey were discussed at workgroup meetings, and input from industry was used 

to correct inaccuracies in the data. For this rulemaking, the 2008 emissions and 

reduction estimates in the years when the limits become effective (2010-2015) were 

grown from 2003 sales data and the State Department of Finance’s population 

estimates. Annual population growth factors were calculated using the 2008 State 

population figures and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) 

Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report 

(ARB, 2008d). 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 43 

 Staff is confident that the 2003 Survey had adequate representation of the 

available technologies in the market place and finds that the data meet the requirement 

in Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) to base regulations on “adequate data.” 

This assumption has been verified by discussions with manufacturers, category 

research and the wide range of VOC content reported for products in the categories 

slated for regulation. The Pressurized Gas Duster Survey update, conducted in early 

2008 for 2007 sales, also provided the best data for use in GHG proposal (ARB, 2008c). 

 In developing these proposals, staff worked extensively with stakeholders on 

each category proposed for regulation. In meetings with members of industry and other 

interested stakeholders, extensive discussions on the types of technologies used in 

each category were discussed. Numerous product labels and associated literature for 

each category were analyzed. Category information was also obtained from trade 

journals, Internet sites, textbooks, patents, and directly from manufacturers. 

2. Emission Estimates for Categories 

 The total emissions from the categories proposed for regulation are estimated to 

be about 22.6 tons per day in 2008. Table IV-3 summarizes these emissions, as well as 

the anticipated VOC reduction when the proposed limits become effective. 

 If adopted, once all limits become effective, the VOC emission reductions will be 

approximately 5.8 tons per day. 

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Development of the proposed amendment to reduce the use of compounds with 

high GWP began with the GHG emissions data available from the 2003 Survey of 

consumer products. Staff evaluated these data for possible GHG reductions and 

development of new regulations for this rulemaking. 

Based on these data it appeared that a GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters 

was feasible. During the public process of developing the proposed GWP limit, staff 

held meetings and teleconferences to solicit information and comments from industry 

associations and industry representatives. At this time, industry representatives alerted 

ARB staff that significant changes in the gas duster market had occurred since 2003. In 

response, staff conducted the Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update to collect 

updated data (ARB, 2008c). The GHG emissions from the Pressurized Gas Dusters for 

2003 and 2007 were estimated using reported information from the 2003 Consumer 

Products Survey and from the Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update gathered during 

February 2008 for 2007 sales. Information from both surveys is shown in Table IV-4. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 44 

Table IV-3 

Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date 

Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(percent by 

weight)

2008 VOC 

Emissions* 

(tons per day)

Reductions 

at Effective 

Date 

(tons per day)

Astringent / Toner 

(non-FDA regulated) a All 35 0.62 0.11 

Aerosol 5 0.32 0.07 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleanera

Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07 

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 

Dusting Aida

Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00 

Fabric Protectanta Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08 

Fabric Softener – 

 Single Use Dryer Producta All 0.05 grams per use** 0.52 0.21 

Floor Maintenance Producta All 1 0.11 0.07 

Floor Polish or Wax – 

 Wood Floor Waxa All 70 0.06 0.01 

Glass Cleanerb Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03 

Motor Vehicle Washa All 0.2 0.38 0.14 

25c

Multi-purpose Lubricant – 4.08 2.04 

 excluding solid & semisolidc/e All 

10e 1.27 

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00 

Odor Remover/Eliminatora

Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03 

Penetrantc All 25 0.40 0.15 

Personal Fragrance Product 

(products with 20% or less 

fragrance) d

All 75+

 10.89 0.41 

Pressurized Gas Dustera All 1 0 0 

Chemically Curingb Nonaerosol Sealant or 3 1.91 0.22 

Caulking 

Compound Non-Chemically 

Curinga

Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12 

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 

Spot Removera

Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05 

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00 

Tire or Wheel Cleanera

Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06 

Windshield Water Repellenta All 75 0.23 0.04 

Total Emissions 2008 22.61 tons per day

Total VOC Reductions 2015 5.76 tons per day 

 * Survey emissions adjusted for market coverage, Effective Dates: 

 and grown to the 2008 calendar year a: 12/31/2010 

 ** Grams per use limit provides emissions reductions equivalent b: 12/31/2012 

 to 2.6% VOC limit, including fragrance c: 12/31/2013 

 *** Omitted to protect confidentiality d: 12/31/2014 

 + Remove “Grandfather” clauses e: 12/31/2015
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 45 

Table IV-4 

Pressurized Gas Duster 

Survey 

Data

Product 

Form 

Number 

of 

Products

2008 

Category 

Sales 

(lbs/day)

2008 Adjusted 

GHG Emissions 

(CO2e lbs/day)

2008 Adjusted 

GHG Emissions 

(CO2e MMT/year)

2003 Aerosol 39 3,657 2,242,171 0.37 

2007 Aerosol 90 7,292 2,179,855 0.36 

Pressurized Gas Dusters have a sales-weighted average GHG content of over 

99 percent by weight. As shown in Table IV-4, 39 duster products were reported for 

2003 with adjusted sales of 3,657 pounds per day for 2008, and estimated GHG 

emissions of about 0.37 MMT CO2e per year in California. Additionally, as shown in the 

table, 90 duster products were reported for 2007 with adjusted sales of 7,292 pounds 

per day for 2008, and estimated GHG emissions of about 0.36 MMT CO2e per year. 

 Manufacturers of Pressurized Gas Dusters have been proactive in taking actions 

to reduce GHG emissions from gas dusters. Prior to 2003, where feasible, industry 

leaders voluntarily shifted away from using HFC-134a as the propellant in gas dusters 

to using HFC-152a (CSPA, 2008). These changes were captured and quantified in the 

2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. This is why the 2008 adjusted GHG 

emissions, shown above, have not increased proportionate to the category sales, which 

have nearly doubled. (For more details on the Pressurized Gas Duster proposal see 

Chapter VI). 

 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. April 1, 2008 

 (ARB, 2008a). 

2. Air Resources Board. 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. 

 February, 2008. (ARB, 2008c) 

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

Vehicle Trends Report. (ARB, 2008d) 

4. Air Resources Board. List Of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. 

 October 17, 2007. (ARB, 2007b) 

 

5. Air Resources Board. ARB Compendium of Emission Factors and Methods to 

Support Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October, 2007. 

(ARB, 2007c) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 46 

6. Air Resources Board. State Strategy for California’s 2007 Implementation Plan. 

Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the Air Resources Board on 

 September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d) 

7. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 July 24, 2007. (ARB, 2007f) 

8. Air Resources Board. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality –

2007 Edition. 2007. (ARB, 2007g) 

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

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

 (ARB, 2007h) 

10. Air Resources Board. Comparison of California’s Ozone Problem to the Rest of 

the Country. July 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006b) 

11. Air Resources Board. Review of the California Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

Ozone. October, 2005. (ARB, 2005) 

12. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

13. Air Resources Board. Fact sheets Backgrounder: The Greenhouse Effect and 

California. March, 2003. (ARB, 2003) 

14. Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

Staff Report - Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. May 3, 2002. (ARB, 2002) 

15. Air Resources Board. Effect of Ozone on Vegetation and Possible Alternative 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. March, 1987. (ARB, 1987) 

16. Avol, E.L., Gauderman, W.J., Tan, S.M., London, S.J., and Peters, J.M. 

Respiratory Effects of Relocating to Areas of Differing Air Pollution Levels. 2001. 

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Volume 164: 2067-

2072. (Avol, et al., 2001) 

 

17. California Department of Finance. Report: State Adds 444,000 in 2006: 2007 

Population Nears 37.7 Million. May 1, 2007. (CA DOF, 2007) 

 

18. Consumer Specialty Products Association. Technology of Pressurized Gas 

Duster Products - Meeting with ARB Staff. Andrew Steinman, Executive Vice 

President, Falcon Safety Products, Inc. March 5, 2008. (CSPA, 2008) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 47 

19. Delfino RJ, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Street DH, McLaren CE. Association of 

Asthma Symptoms with Peak Particulate Air Pollution and Effect Modification by 

Anti-inflammatory Medication Use. 2002. Environmental Health Perspectives. 

Volume 110. Number 10: A607-617. (Delfino, et al., 2002) 

20. Dominici F, Peng RD, Bell ML, Pham L, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet JM. 

Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Admission for Cardiovascular and 

Respiratory Diseases. 2006. Journal of American Medical Association. 

 Volume 925. Number 10: 1127-1134. (Dominici et al., 2006) 

 

21. Dominici F, McDermott A, Daniels M, Zeger SL, Samet JM. Revised Analyses of 

the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study: Mortality Among 

Residents of 90 Cities. 2005. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 

A. 68:1071-92. (Dominici et al., 2005) 

22. Dominici F, McDermott A, Daniels M, Zeger SL, Samet JM. Revised Analyses of 

the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study, Part II. 2003. Health 

Effects Institute Special Report. (Dominici et al., 2003) 

 

23. Gauderman, W.J., Avol, E., Lurmann, F., Kunzli, N., Gilliland, F., Peters, J., and 

McConnell, R. Childhood Asthma and Exposure to Traffic and Nitrogen Dioxide. 

2005. Epidemiology. Volume 16. Number 6: 737-743. (Gauderman et al., 2005) 

 

24. Gauderman, W.J., Vora, H., McConnell, R., Berhane, K., Gilliland, F., Thomas, 

D., Lurmann, F., Avol, E., Kunzli, N., Jerrett, M., and Peters, J. The Effect of Air 

Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age. 2004. New England 

Journal of Medicine. Volume 351. Number 11: 1057-1067. 

(Gauderman et al., 2004) 

25. Gauderman, W.J., Gilliland, G.F., Vora, H., Avol, E., Stram, D., McConnell, R., 

Thomas, D., Lurmann, F., Margolis, H.G., Rappaport, E.B., Berhane, K., and 

Peters, J.M. Association between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in 

Southern California Children: Results from a Second Cohort. 2002. American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Volume 166: 76-84. 

 (Gauderman et al., 2002) 

26. Gauderman, W.J., McConnell, R., Gilliland, F., London, S., Thomas, D., Avol, E., 

Vora, H., Berhane, K., Rappaport, E.B., Lurmann, F., Margolis, H.G., and Peters, 

J. Association Between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in Southern 

California Children. 2000. American Journal Respiratory and Critical Care 

Medicine. Volume 162. pp.1383-1390. (Gauderman et al., 2000) 

27. Gent JF, Triche EW, Holford TR, Belanger K, Bracken MB, Beckett WS, 

Leaderer BP. Association of Low-level Ozone and Fine Particles with 

Respiratory Symptoms in Children with Asthma. 2003. Journal of American 

Medical Association. Volume 290. Number 14: 1859-1867. (Gent et al., 2003) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 48 

28. Gilliland, F.D., Berhand, K., Rappaport, E.B., Thomas, D.C., Avol, E., 

Gauderman, W.J., London, S.J., Margolis, H.G., McConnell, R., Islam, K.T., and 

Peters, J.M. The Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on School Absenteeism Due to 

Respiratory Illnesses. 2001. Epidemiology. Volume 12. Number 1: 12-43. 

(Gilliland et al., 2001) 

29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. 

Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. 

Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: 

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

 Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007) 

30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995, The 

Science of Climate Change; Contribution of Working Group I to the Second 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. 

Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. 

Maskell, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

(IPCC, 1996) 

31. Krewski D, Burnett R, Goldberg MS, Koover K, Siemiatycki J, Jerrett M et al. 

Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society 

Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. 2000. Research Report of the 

Health Effects Institute. (Krewski et al., 2000) 

32. Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. 2006. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care 

Medicine. Volume 173: 667-672. (Laden et al., 2006) 

33. Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J. Association of Fine Particulate 

Matter from Different Sources with Daily Mortality in Six U.S. Cities. 2000. 

Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 108. Number 10: 941-947. 

 (Laden et al., 2000) 

34. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. London, T. Islam, W.J. Gauderman, 

E. Avol, H.G. Margolis, and J.M. Peters. Asthma in Exercising Children Exposed 

to Ozone: A Cohort Study. 2002. Lancet. Volume 359: 386-391. 

 (McConnell et al., 2002) 

35. McConnell, R., Berhane, K., London, S.J., Vora, H., Avol, E., Gauderman, W.J., 

Margolis, H.G., Lurmann, F., Thomas, D.C., and Peters, J.M. Air Pollution and 

Bronchitic Symptoms in Southern California Children with Asthma. 1999. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 49 

Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 107. Number 9: 757-760. 

(McConnell et al., 1999) 

36. Miller KA, Siscovick DS, Sheppard L, Shepherd K, Sullivan JH, Anderson GL, 

and Kaufman JD. Long-term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of -

Cardiovascular Events in Women. 2007. New England Journal of American 

Medicine. Volume 356. Number 5: 447-458. (Miller et al., 2007) 

37. Moolgavkar, SH. Air Pollution and Daily Deaths and Hospital Admissions in Los 

Angeles and Cook Counties. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of Air 

Pollution and Health. 2003. Special Report. Health Effects Institute: 183-198. 

(Moolgavkar, 2003) 

38. Ostro BD, Lipsett MJ, Mann JK, Krupnick A, Harrington W. Air Pollution and 

Respiratory Morbidity among Adults in Southern California. 1993. American 

Journal of Epidemiology. Volume 137. Number 7: 691-700. (Ostro et al., 1993) 

39. Ostro BD, Rothschild S. Air Pollution and Acute Respiratory Morbidity: An 

Observational Study of Multiple Pollutants. 1989. Environmental Research. 

 Volume 50: 238-247. (Ostro et al., 1989) 

40. Peel JL, Tolbert PE, Klein M, Metzger KB, Flanders WD, Todd K, Mulholland JA, 

Ryan PB, Frumkin H. Ambient Air Pollution and Respiratory Emergency 

Department Visits. 2005. Epidemiology. Volume 16. Number 2: 164-174. 

 (Peel et al., 2005) 

41. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Pew Center on the States. 

Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change. 

December, 2006. (Pew, 2006) 

42. Pope, CA 3rd, Burnett RT, Thurston GE, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, and 

Godleski, JJ. Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-Term Exposure to Particulate 

Air Pollution: Epidemiological Evidence of General Pathophysiological Pathways 

of Disease. 2004. Circulation. Volume 109: 71-77. (Pope et al., 2004) 

43. Pope, CA 3rd, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD. 

Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution. 2002. Journal of American Medical Association. Volume 

287. Number 9: 1132-41. (Pope et al., 2002) 

44. Seinfeld, John H., and Pandis, Spyros N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics -

From Air Pollution to Climate Change. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998. 

(Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 50 

45. Sheppard L. Ambient Air Pollution and Nonelderly Asthma Hospital Admissions 

in Seattle, Washington, 1987-1994. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of 

Air Pollution and Health. Special Report. 2003. Health Effects Institute. 

 pp. 227-240. (Sheppard et al., 2003) 

46. Symons JM, Wang L, Guallar E, Howell E, Dominici F, Schwab M, Ange BA, 

Samet J, Ondov J, Harrison D, Geyh A. A Case-crossover Study of Fine 

Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Onset of Congestive Heart Failure Symptom 

Exacerbation Leading to Hospitalization. 2006. American Journal of 

Epidemiology. Volume 164. Number 5: 421-433. (Symons et al., 2006) 

47. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook: Statistical 

Indicators, Table 34.-Cash Receipts from Farm Marketing, by State. July, 2006, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/Agoutlook/AOTables/. (USDA, 2006) 

48. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical 

Information OAQPS Staff Paper – Second Draft. July, 2006. (U.S. EPA, 2006) 

49. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone; Final Rule. Federal Register: July 18, 1997. 

 Volume 62. Number 138. (U.S. EPA, 1997) 

50. Whittemore A, Korn E. Asthma and Air Pollution in the Los Angeles Area. 1980. 

American Journal of Public Health. Volume 70. Number 7: 687-696. (Whittemore 

and Korn, 1980) 

51. Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. Airborne particles and hospital admissions for heart 

and lung disease. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of Air Pollution and 

Health. Special Report. 2003. Health Effects Institute. pp. 241-248. 

 (Zanobetti et al., 2003)

Technical Support Document Chapter V - 51

V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION

 In this Chapter, we provide a plain English description of the proposed 

amendments to the California Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound 

(VOC) Emissions from Consumer Products and explain the rationale for the 

amendments. The regulation is codified in title 17, California Code of Regulations, 

Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5, Article 2, Consumer Products, sections 

94507-94517 (Consumer Products Regulation). 

 Where applicable, key terms or concepts involved in each proposed amendment 

are described. The discussion in this Chapter is intended to satisfy the requirements of 

Government Code Section 11343.2, which requires that a noncontrolling “plain English” 

summary of the regulation be made available to the public. The proposed amendments 

to the Consumer Products Regulation can be found in Appendix B. 

 First of all, the current title of the regulation, “Regulation for Reducing Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products,” implies that the intent of the 

regulation is solely to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products. In this 

rulemaking, however, we are proposing to add requirements related to climate change. 

To clarify that the regulation now specifies requirements to reduce VOCs and 

greenhouse gases (GHG), we are proposing to change the title of the regulation to 

“Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products.” Additionally, 

amendments are being proposed to six sections in the Consumer Products Regulation: 

section 94508 “Definitions,” section 94509 “Standards for Consumer Products,” 

section 94510 “Exemptions,” section 94512 “Administrative Requirements,” section 

94513, “Reporting Requirements,” and section 94515, “Test Methods.” These 

amendments are discussed below in detail. 

 In the sections below, we describe the proposed amendments and the rationale 

for them. The proposal includes the addition and modification of numerous definitions, 

a change in the definition of VOC to exclude a hydrofluoroether, new and lower VOC 

limits for multiple categories, and several changes to clarify existing sections of the 

Consumer Products Regulation. In addition, we are proposing to prohibit use of certain 

toxic compounds in several product categories. Our proposal also includes a provision 

to restrict the use of compounds with high global warming potential (GWP) in 

Pressurized Gas Duster products. A more detailed discussion of the existing regulatory 

requirements are referred to at the end of this Chapter (ARB, 2006a; ARB 2004b; ARB, 

1999; ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1991a; ARB, 1990c). 

A. DEFINITIONS (SECTION 94508)

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

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

Regulation include new or revised definitions. These definitions are necessary to define 

categories proposed for VOC limits or GWP limits, or to improve enforceability of the 

Regulation. 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 52

 

 Table V-1 lists proposed new definitions that are needed for product categories 

proposed for regulation. Because of the proposed definitional changes, 

section 94508(a) would also be reorganized to reflect proper alphabetical order. 

Chapter VI, contains a detailed discussion related to the proposal for each category. 

Table V-1 

New Definitions Proposed for Addition 

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound 

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or 

Caulking Compound 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product Not for Retail Sale 

Floor Maintenance Product Odor Remover/Eliminator 

Global Warming Potential Tire or Wheel Cleaner 

Global Warming Potential Value Windshield Water Repellant 

Motor Vehicle Wash 

 

 Several of these definitions warrant a further description. 

Global Warming Potential and Global Warming Potential Value

Of particular note, we are proposing new definitions for GWP and GWP Value. 

These definitions are necessary to implement our proposal to reduce the use of 

compounds with high GWPs used in Pressurized Gas Dusters. We are proposing to 

use the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

GWP provides a measure of a compound’s impact on global warming compared to 

carbon dioxide. The GWP Value definition specifies that the 100-year GWP values in 

the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of IPCC would be used to determine 

compliance. To enforce our proposal to reduce the use of compounds with high GWPs 

in Pressurized Gas Duster, the definition further specifies that, if the SAR does not 

contain a GWP value for a specific chemical or compound, then the IPCC, Fourth 

Assessment Report (FAR) GWP value for that chemical or compound can be used. If 

there is no GWP value listed for a specific chemical or compound in the SAR or the 

FAR, then the GWP value is assumed to be equal to the applicable GWP limit (i.e. the 

GWP limit established for specific consumer product categories). 

 Not for Retail Sale

 We are also proposing to clarify what is meant by “not for retail sale.” The 

current regulation includes several provisions where an exemption from compliance is 

provided if certain criteria are met. For example, General Purpose Degreasers and 

Lubricants are not subject to VOC limits if they are sold exclusively to establishments 

which manufacture or construct good or commodities, and are labeled “not for retail 

sale.” Staff has received numerous inquiries as to what “not for retail sale” means, 

therefore, staff is proposing to define this term. As proposed, “Not for Retail Sale” 

means that a product is sold exclusively to establishments that manufacture or construct 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 53

goods or commodities, or are products sold to holders of commercial licenses (e.g. an 

electrician). For purposes of the regulation, “Not for Retail Sale” means the product is 

not sold in retail outlets or wholesale locations where household consumers may 

purchase them. 

 Table V-2, contains the list of existing definitions that are proposed to be 

modified. These changes are necessary to improve clarity, improve enforceability, or to 

describe the types of products that are excluded from another category definition. 

Table V-2 

Existing Definitions Proposed for Modification

Air Freshener Lubricant 

Astringent/Toner Metal Polish/Cleanser 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Multi-Purpose Dry Lubricant 

Disinfectant Multi-Purpose Lubricant 

Dusting Aid Penetrant 

Existing Product Personal Fragrance Product 

Fabric Protectant Pressurized Gas Duster 

Fabric Refresher Sealant or Caulking Compound 

Floor Polish or Wax – Wood Floor Wax Spot Remover 

Glass Cleaner Volatile Organic Compound 

 

Two of the definitions listed in Table V-2 that are proposed for modification 

warrant a further description. 

 VOC Definition

 As noted above, we are proposing to modify the definition of VOC to exclude 

hydrofluoroether (HFE) 7200. HFE 7200 is a solvent used in precision cleaning. In a 

report titled “Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals,” 

ARB staff determined that use of HFE 7200 has negligible impacts on ground-level 

ozone formation. It also has a fairly low GWP. No other adverse impacts were 

identified (ARB, 2008b). Therefore, to provide an additional reformulation option that 

could result in further VOC reductions, staff believes the exemption is appropriate. 

 Pressurized Gas Duster Definition

 Currently, the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster describes a product used to 

remove dust on surfaces that cannot be cleaned with a solvent. In developing the 

proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters, staff became aware that there are certain niche 

uses of these products where flammability is a concern. These products are formulated 

with a non-flammable propellant with a high GWP. At present time, no technology 

exists that would maintain this non-flammable aspect if these products were mandated 

to comply with our proposed GWP limit for this category. Therefore, staff is proposing a 

modification to the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster to exclude products used on 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 54

energized equipment as long as the Principal Display Panel specifies “Energized 

Equipment use only.” As proposed, products so-labeled would neither be subject to the 

GWP limit nor the VOC limit. 

B. STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS (SECTION 94509)

 1. Proposed Amendments to Section 94509(a) - Table of Standards 

 The proposed regulatory action would amend the existing Consumer Products 

Regulation by specifying VOC limits for the product categories shown in Table V-3. 

Some of the categories are previously unregulated and others are currently regulated. 

For the currently regulated categories we are proposing lower VOC limits. The new or 

modified VOC limits would become effective between December 31, 2010 and 

December 31, 2015, as indicated in Table V-3. Note that in some cases different VOC 

limits are proposed based on product form. All of these changes would be reflected in 

the Table of Standards in section 94509(a). Several of the proposed VOC limits warrant 

additional explanation. 

Proposal for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product

 

 Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product is a previously unregulated category. 

As shown in Table V-3, a grams of VOC per use limit is being proposed for these 

products, rather than a percent by weight limit. Our rationale for this proposal is 

described in section 2 below. 

 Proposal for Personal Fragrance Products

 Staff is proposing that Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less 

fragrance would be required to meet the existing January 1, 1999, limit of 75 percent by 

weight VOC. This would remove the so-called “Grandfather” clauses currently 

contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). The reader if referred to Section C below for 

more information on this proposal.

 Proposal for Furniture Maintenance Product

 Although not shown in Table V-3, staff is proposing to reinstate the long-standing 

exemption for solid and paste forms of Furniture Maintenance Products. This 

exemption was inadvertently omitted during the 2006 rulemaking. The exemption 

clarifies that solid and paste forms of this type of product are not subject to the current 

VOC limit of three percent by weight. 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 55

Table V-3 

Proposed VOC Limit, Product Forms, and Effective Dates 

Product Category Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt%)

Effective 

Date

Astringent/Toner All 35 12/31/10 

Aerosol 5 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner 

Non-aerosol 1 

12/31/10 

Aerosol 17 Dusting Aid 

Non-aerosol 3 

12/31/10 

Fabric Protectant Non-aerosol 1 12/31/10 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer 

Product All 0.05 grams per use 

12/31/10 

Floor Maintenance Product All 1 12/31/10 

Floor Polish or Wax 

(Wood Floor Wax) All 70 12/31/10 

Glass Cleaner Aerosol 10 12/31/12 

Motor Vehicle Wash All 0.2 12/31/10 

All* 25 12/31/13 

Multi-Purpose Lubricant 

All* 10 12/31/15 

Aerosol 25 

Odor Remover/Eliminator 

Non-aerosol 6 

12/31/10 

Penetrant All 25 12/31/13 

Personal Fragrance Product 

(products with 20% or less fragrance) All 75** 12/31/14 

Pressurized Gas Duster Aerosol 1 12/31/10 

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound Non-aerosol 3 12/31/12 

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or 

Caulking Compound Non-aerosol 1.5 12/31/10 

Aerosol 15 Spot Remover 

Non-aerosol 3 

12/31/10 

Aerosol 8 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner 

Non-aerosol 2 

12/31/10 

Windshield Water Repellent All 75 12/31/10 

* Excluding solid and semisolid ** Remove “Grandfather” clauses 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 56

2. Other Proposed Amendments to section 94509 

 The following proposals pertain to other subsections of section 94509. 

Proposed Requirement for Dilutable Products - Section 94509(b)(4)

 Currently, section 94509(b) in the Consumer Products Regulation states that any 

product that is designed to be diluted prior to use is subject to the VOC limits specified 

in section 94509(a) after the product has been diluted. Staff has become aware of 

products packaged in pump spray containers that appear to be marketed as “ready-touse” products, but are designed to be diluted by the user prior to use. Staff believes this 

approach to packaging may be diminishing anticipated VOC reductions, and is a 

potential circumvention of the intent of the regulation. Therefore, staff is proposing a 

modification to section 94509(b)(4), clarifying that the VOC limit for products sold in 

pump spray containers is applied prior to any minimum suggested dilution. 

 Date Coding Requirements – Section 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p)

 Subsections 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p) specify prohibitions on use of certain 

chlorinated compounds in specified categories. We are proposing to clarify the date 

coding requirement that must be met to qualify as a “sell-through” product. As 

proposed, the product would need to comply with the product dating requirements 

beginning in section 94512(b). 

 Prohibition of Toxics from Specific Categories - Section 94509(q)

 

 To mitigate a potential adverse environmental impact, staff is proposing a new 

subsection (q) within section 94509 to prohibit the use of methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in “Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner,” “Fabric 

Protectant,” “Multi-Purpose Lubricant,” “Penetrants,” “Sealant or Caulking Compound,” 

and “Spot Remover.” 

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

identify and mitigate any possible adverse environmental impacts of regulatory 

actions. We believe that it is unlikely, but possible, that manufacturers may, in 

response to new VOC limits, choose to reformulate with chlorinated solvents that are 

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). Therefore, because there are many products that 

comply with the proposed limits, none of which contain chlorinated solvents, 

prohibiting their use is appropriate to reduce the public’s exposure to these TACs. 

 Staff is also proposing, in new subsection 94509(q)(2), language to describe 

the sell-through period and date coding requirements for the products listed above. It 

is being proposed that any of these products manufactured before 

December 31, 2010, can be sold, supplied, or offered for sale until 

December 31, 2013, as long as they comply with the date coding requirements 

beginning in section 94512(b). 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 57

 Language for the notification requirements of the suppliers of the products 

listed above is being proposed in new subsection 94509(q)(3). This section requires 

that the seller must notify the purchaser of the sell-through period described in 

94509(q)(2) only if the product is being sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer, and 

the product is being sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2013. 

 New subsection 94509(q)(4) is being proposed to establish that the 

requirements of 94509(q)(1) and 94509(q)(3) do not apply to products that contain 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene present as an impurity, or 

in amounts equal or less than 0.01 percent by weight. 

 In evaluating the use of these TACs, staff has become aware that certain 

Penetrants are designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations, the 

products must be non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide this nonflammable aspect, the chlorinated solvents are used. At present time, staff is not 

aware of alternative solvents that can perform this function. Therefore, staff is 

proposing that Penetrants labeled “Non-flammable: For use on Energized Equipment 

Only” not be subject to this prohibition. This language would have to be displayed on 

the Principal Display Panel. Thee products would, however, be required to meet the 

proposed VOC limits. 

Proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters - Section 94509(r)

 The reduction of GHGs from consumer products has been designated as a 

Discrete Early Action Measure in accordance with The California Global Warming 

Solutions Act of 2006. The emission reduction estimated for Consumer Products is 

0.25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMT CO2e) per year. One of 

the first emission sources that has been identified is compounds used in aerosol 

products. As a first step, staff is proposing, in new subsection 94509(r)(1), that 

Pressurized Gas Dusters could not contain a chemical compound that has a Global 

Warming Potential of 150 or greater. 

In accordance with CEQA, to ensure that the VOC content of these products do 

not increase as a result of reformulation to meet GWP limits, a one percent by weight 

VOC limit is also being proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. As a further mitigation 

measure, we are also proposing that Pressurized Gas Dusters could not contain the 

VOC exempt compounds methylene chloride or perchloroethylene. While 

reformulating with these TACs is unlikely, we believe prohibiting their use is prudent to 

ensure that there is no increase in exposure to these TACs. 

 Staff is also proposing in section 94509(r)(2) that Pressurized Gas Dusters 

manufactured before the effective date of the limit can be sold, supplied, or offered for 

sale until December 31, 2011, as long as the product complies with the product dating 

requirements beginning in section 94512(b). 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 58

Section 94509(r)(3) is being proposed to specify that any seller or supplier of 

Pressurized Gas Dusters must notify a purchaser of the product that the sell-through 

period ends on December 31, 2011. However, this notice must only be given if the 

product is being sold to a distributor or retailer, and the product is sold or supplied on 

or after June 30, 2011. 

Section 94509(r)(4) is being proposed to specify that the fragrance exemption 

does not apply to Pressurized Gas Dusters. This proposal ensures that even with 

fragrance, the total VOCs in a Pressurized Gas Duster will not exceed one percent by 

weight. This is consistent with requirements under CEQA, as discussed above, to 

ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as a result of the proposed regulation. 

Finally, Section 94509(r)(5) is being proposed to specify that any chemical 

compounds that are present as impurities in an amount, in aggregate, of 0.1 percent 

by weight or less, are not subject to the GWP limit or toxics prohibition for Pressurized 

Gas Dusters. Some of the chemical compounds used in Pressurized Gas Dusters 

may contain very small quantities of contaminants. This provision allows Pressurized 

Gas Dusters that contain those contaminants, present at very low levels, to comply 

with the regulatory provisions. 

 Staff has also become aware that certain Pressurized Gas Dusters are 

designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the products must be 

non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide this non-flammable aspect, 

propellants with high GWPs are used. At present time, staff is not aware of alternative 

propellants that can perform this function. Therefore, staff is proposing that 

Pressurized Gas Dusters that specify on the Principal Display Panel “Energized 

Equipment use only.” be exempt from both the VOC and GWP limits. 

Requirements for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product – Section 

94509(s)

 

Staff is proposing a new subsection 94509(s) to describe the VOC content limit 

for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product. These products are typically made by 

applying liquid materials to a non-woven sheet substrate. Rather than a percent by 

weight limit, a 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit is proposed. The limit is designed to 

provide a level playing field and to ensure that the size of each dryer sheet does not 

increase. In developing the limit for these products, staff determined that establishing 

a percent by weight limit could result in the use of larger sheets to comply. This would 

diminish emission reductions and potentially lead to increasing the solid waste stream. 

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA requirements to mitigate potential environmental 

impacts, the grams per sheet limit is proposed. The 0.05 grams per use VOC limit is 

designed to provide a VOC reduction equivalent to that which would be achieved by 

setting a 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit (including 2 percent for fragrance). Because 

the limit already accounts for the fragrance, there is no need to provide the fragrance 

exemption contained in section 94510(c) for these products. This modification is 

proposed in section 94510(c). 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 59

C. EXEMPTIONS (SECTION 94510 (h) and (l)) 

At present, Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance are 

required to meet an 80 percent by weight or a 75 percent by weight VOC limit, 

depending on when they first were introduced to the market. Products existing prior to 

setting these limits do not need to comply with either limit. Products that were 

introduced between 1995 and 1999 were required to meet the 80 percent by weight 

VOC limit, but were not required to reformulate to meet the January 1, 1999, limit. 

Only products introduced after January 1, 1999, are required to meet the 75 percent 

by weight VOC limit. These provisions are contained in subsections 94509(h) and (l). 

Staff is proposing to remove these “Grandfather” clauses. Under this proposal, all 

Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance would be required to 

meet the 75 percent by weight VOC limit effective on December 31, 2014. These 

proposals are contained in new subsections 94510(h)(3) and (l)(1). 

 D. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 94512) 

 

 Proposed Modification to Product Dating Requirements – Section 94512(b)(1)

 

Currently, section 94512(b)(1) specifies that a product must clearly display the 

date or code indicating the date of manufacture. We are proposing language to clarify 

that a sequential batch number on a product package does not satisfy the product 

dating requirements. 

 Proposed Modification to Labeling Requirements – Section 94512(d)

 

 Staff is proposing that non-aerosol Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically 

Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound products comply with additional labeling 

requirements specified in section 94512(d). Because different VOC limits are proposed, 

staff believes this is necessary to easily distinguish between Chemically Curing Sealant 

or Caulking Compound and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound. 

Section 94512(d) requires products to display the applicable regulatory category and 

VOC limit as a percent by weight. The information must be clearly visible. These 

provisions will improve enforceability. 

E. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 94513) 

 Staff is proposing a 25 percent by weight VOC limit for Multi-purpose Lubricants 

and Penetrants, effective December 31, 2013. These are challenging but feasible limits 

within the time-frame proposed. For Multi-purpose Lubricants staff is proposing a 

technology forcing 10 percent second tier VOC limit, effective December 31, 2015. To 

ensure that manufacturers are on track, and that technology advances as expected, 

staff believes that manufacturers should demonstrate their progress toward meeting 

these limits. 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 60

 Therefore, as proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Multi-purpose Lubricant and 

Penetrant manufacturers would need to supply detailed written updates on their 

research and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the VOC 

limits. The reports would include sales and formulation data for products, as well as 

detailed information on the raw materials evaluated for use, maximum incremental 

reactivity (MIR) values for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated, the function of the 

raw material evaluated, testing protocols used, the results of the testing, the hardware 

evaluated, and the cost of reformulation efforts. The first report would be due on 

March 31, 2012, and would provide data for the 2011 calendar year. For Multi-purpose 

Lubricants, a second report would be due on March 31, 2014, and would provide data 

for the 2013 calendar year. 

 Should technical or commercial issues arise, or if it appears reductions could 

occur within a shorter timeframe, staff would develop appropriate measures to ensure 

air quality benefits occur as soon as possible. 

F. TEST METHODS (SECTION 94515) 

 Staff is proposing to clarify that ARB’s Method 310 be used as the analytical 

method to determine GWP content. This method already contains the necessary 

protocols to analyze for both HFC-152a and HFC-134a content. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected 

Halogenated Chemicals – Staff Report. March, 2008. (ARB, 2008b) 

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

the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation. September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a) 

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

the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and 

Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners and Toilet/Urinal Care 

Products. May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b) 

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

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Mid-term Measures II. 

 September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999) 

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

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures I. 

 June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 61

6. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to 

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – 

 Phase II – Technical Support Document. October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a) 

7. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technical Support Document. 

August, 1990. (ARB, 1990c)

Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 62 

VI. DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT CATEGORIES

 In this Chapter, we provide the technical basis for the proposed limits for each 

category proposed for regulation. The following information is described for each of the 

product categories: 

• a product category description; 

• information on product use and marketing; 

• information on the product formulations; 

• a discussion of the proposed volatile organic compound (VOC) and/or global 

warming potential (GWP) limit, our rationale for the proposed limit, and the 

options for compliance; and 

• if applicable, a discussion of outstanding issues associated with the proposal. 

 Chapter VI is divided into two parts. Section A includes descriptions of the 

product categories for which VOC limits are proposed. The product categories in 

Section A are in alphabetical order. Section B describes the product category for which 

a greenhouse gas (GHG) limit is proposed. 

A. CATEGORIES FOR WHICH VOC LIMITS ARE PROPOSED 

1. Astringent/Toner 

Product Category Description: 

 The Astringent/Toner category consists of products which are designed or 

labeled to be applied to skin for the purpose of cleaning and tightening pores. For this 

rulemaking, only those Astringents/Toners not regulated by the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) are included. These products may also exfoliate, refresh, remove 

excess dirt, oil, impurities, and/or prepare the skin for moisturizing. While most 

Astringents/Toners are liquid products, there are also products sold in the form of 

substrate-impregnated pads. Astringent/Toner does not include any hand, face, or body 

cleaner or soap product, Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner, Personal Fragrance 

Product, cold cream, lotion or Antiperspirant. Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner 

means any product regulated as a drug by the FDA which is applied to the skin for the 

purpose of cleaning or tightening pores. In accordance with FDA rules, Medicated 

Astringents/Medicated Toners must be labeled such that the active ingredients in the 

product are identified. 

 Astringent/Toner is a previously unregulated category. Table VI-1 below 

summarizes the sales and emissions from Astringents/Toners based on the results of 

ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar 

year. Total category sales are about 5,910 pounds per day. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 63 

Table VI-1 

Astringent/Toner* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

All Forms 203 5,910 1,240 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

 As indicated, 203 different branded Astringents/Toners were sold in California in 

2003 by 73 companies. Astringent/Toner VOC emissions, adjusted to 2008, are about 

1,240 pounds per day, or 0.62 tons per day, in California. Although not shown in 

Table VI-1, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is about 

21 percent by weight. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Astringents/Toners are used by both health professionals and household 

consumers to eliminate oil, decrease pore size, and/or remove dirt remaining on skin 

after cleansing. They may also exfoliate, refresh, tighten, and prepare the skin for 

moisturizing. Typically, the Astringent/Toner is dispensed onto a cotton ball or pad and 

the moistened cotton is wiped across clean and dry skin. The product is not rinsed but 

allowed to dry/evaporate off the skin. Many products recommend the use of a 

moisturizer once the Astringent/Toner has dried (Cote, 2006). 

 Astringents/Toners are sold in a variety of retail outlets including grocery stores, 

drug stores, beauty supply stores, discount stores, and department stores. 

Astringents/Toners are also available for purchase over the Internet. Examples of 

additional terms for Astringents/Toners include but are not limited to, skin tonic, 

freshener, refresher, and/or a clarifying lotion. The most common Astringent/Toner size 

is eight fluid ounces, although some companies offer smaller and larger sizes. 

Product Formulation: 

 The VOC content of products in this category ranges from 0 to 60 percent by 

weight, with a sales-weighted average of 21 percent by weight. Astringents/Toners 

utilize ingredients that will dissolve excess oil and readily evaporate. These products 

typically contain water, low vapor pressure volatile organic compounds (LVP-VOC), 

fragrance and either ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, and/or witch hazel. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 As shown in Table VI-2 below, the proposed VOC limit for Astringent/Toner, is 

35 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. Using emissions adjusted to 2010, 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 64 

the proposed limit would result in an estimated emission reduction of 220 pounds per 

day, or about 0.11 tons per day. 

 Table VI-2 also shows that 70 percent of the market currently complies with the 

proposed 35 percent VOC limit. 

Table VI-2 

Astringent/Toner Proposal* 

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

All Forms 35 177 70 215 220 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 As shown in Table VI-2, at the time of the 2003 Survey, over two-thirds of the 

market complied with the proposed VOC limit of 35 percent by weight. Most of these 

products comply by using slightly lower amounts of alcohol or volatile organic 

ingredients. We believe manufacturers will be able to comply by using the same 

ingredients that are being used today. 

 The proposed 35 percent VOC limit is designed to maintain efficacy among the 

variety of Astringent/Toner products currently available. Staff has information that 

indicates a 2:1 part water to alcohol ratio may be necessary for some products used on 

oily skin. This ratio of water to alcohol is needed for the Astringent/Toner to effectively 

dissolve sebum on oily skin (Idelle, 2008). 

 Staff has determined that reformulation to the proposed limit is technically 

feasible. The majority of products in this category are already low VOC, and there are 

many effective non-VOC alternatives available for substitution. Numerous products with 

VOC content below 35 percent are already available and well-accepted by consumers. 

Reformulation options that can be used by manufacturers to meet the proposed limit 

include reducing the level of alcohol and increasing the amount of water, LVP-VOCs, 

and/or exempted VOCs. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 65 

Issues:

a. Issue: The full range of products that contain all levels of VOCs is necessary to 

maintain efficacy, and provide consumers with all options for skin treatment. 

 

Response: All of the products within this category make similar claims on the 

label, including those containing 35 percent or less VOC. 

b. Issue: Manufacturers will change their non-medicated products to medicated 

allowing the use of the full range of VOCs. 

Response: Staff disagrees. The cost to change a non-medicated product to 

medicated is considerable because of U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

requirements. These requirements would necessitate a change in formulation, 

the use of specific active ingredients such as salicylic acid, labeling modifications, 

and extensive record keeping. 

c. Issue: Any VOC limit on these products will negatively impact public health. 

Response: As required in the California Health and Safety Code, we have 

consulted with staff at California Department of Public Health (DPH) with the 

specifics of our proposal. DPH staff do not oppose a VOC limit for nonmedicated Astringents/Toners. 

d. Issue: Adequate sebum removal occurs with a two parts water to one part 

alcohol (by weight) ratio. 

Response: Staff acknowledges and as a result is proposing a 35 percent VOC 

limit to accommodate products using alcohol to address oily skin. 

e. Issue: Setting a low VOC limit will eliminate some needed products. 

Response: Staff disagrees. We believe all necessary functions of an 

Astringent/Toner can be met at a VOC level of 35 percent or less. In addition, 

70 percent of the market already meets this limit which shows both technological 

and commercial feasibility with the proposed limit. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Cote, Ryan. How to Use an Astringent Skin Toner in Your Skin Care Routine. 

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Use-an-Astringent-Skin-Toner-in-Your-SkinCare-Routine&id=360826 (April 8, 2008). (Cote, 2006) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 66 

3. Idelle Labs. Telephone Conversation with ARB Staff. March 20, 2008. 

 (Idelle, 2008) 

2. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner

Product Category Description: 

 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner products are used for routine cleaning of soils on 

carpet and/or upholstery in homes, businesses, institutions, and vehicles. Typical 

fabrics include wool; cotton; nylon; and other carpet, rug, furniture, and automotive 

interior synthetic fibers. The category includes cleaning products with or without fabric 

protectant claims. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner does not include Spot Removers, used 

for removing localized spots and stains; vinyl or leather cleaners; or products for 

exclusive use at industrial facilities engaged in furniture or carpet manufacture 

(i.e. industrial cleaners used only in production of carpet or furniture). The category also 

does not include Dry Cleaning Fluids (ARB, 1997b). 

 While there are three existing subcategories based on product form, each with a 

different VOC standard, only two VOC standards are being proposed for regulatory 

changes at this time: aerosol products and ready-to-use (RTU) non-aerosol products. 

The third VOC standard, applicable to dilutable non-aerosol products, is being retained 

at the current limit of 0.1 percent VOC (based on minimum dilution concentration). 

However, the proposal to clarify the category definition would apply to all product forms. 

 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners were regulated under Midterm Measures I of the 

Consumer Products Regulation approved on July 24, 1997, and a description of the 

products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1997b). At that 

time, the Board adopted a 7 percent VOC limit for aerosol products, a 0.1 percent VOC 

limit for dilutable non-aerosol products, and a 3 percent VOC limit for RTU non-aerosol 

products. The adopted limits became effective January 1, 2001. 

As discussed, the Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner category is intended to include 

products for routine cleaning of carpets/upholstery. The category does not include Spot 

Remover products for localized spots and stains. 

 Table VI-3 below summarizes the sales and emissions from Carpet/Upholstery 

Cleaners, based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have 

been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 26,788 pounds 

per day. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 67 

Table VI-3 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol 59 9,376 651 

Non-Aerosol 117 17,412 583 

Total 176 26,788 1,234 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

 As shown in Table VI-3, estimated VOC emissions are about 1,234 pounds per 

day, or about 0.61 tons per day, in California. The sales-weighted average VOC 

content of the aerosol and non-aerosol products reported in the 2003 Survey was 

approximately 7 and 3 percent by weight, respectively. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Aerosol products for carpets and rugs typically use an invertible aerosol container 

for downward spray application. The dispensed liquid or foam is left on the carpet or 

rug for several minutes to penetrate and loosen dirt, with or without agitation. To lift and 

remove the dirt, the area is either wiped with cloth (damp or dry, depending on the 

product) before the treated area is dry, or allowed to dry and then brushed or 

vacuumed. Products for upholstery are used in a similar manner. 

 The RTU non-aerosol products include not-to-be-diluted liquids, solids, and 

gel/semisolids. The liquids may be dispensed by mechanical spray (trigger or 

hand-pump-pressurized tank) and used in a manner similar to aerosols. The solids and 

gel/semisolids are granular or powder products applied to carpeting, brushed or 

agitated, and then vacuumed. Some products are used for pre-cleaning sections of 

carpeting, such as traffic lanes, prior to main cleaning such as by hot-water extraction. 

 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners are used by household consumers, janitors, 

professional carpet/upholstery cleaners, and auto detailers in homes, businesses, 

institutions, and vehicles. Aerosol products are typically used by household consumers, 

while the RTU non-aerosol products are used by both household and 

commercial/institutional users. 

 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners are available in general merchandise stores, super 

markets, auto parts stores, hardware stores, janitorial and maintenance supply 

warehouses, and over the Internet. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 68 

Product Formulation: 

 Aerosol products may contain 4 to 7 percent hydrocarbon propellant, VOC 

solvent cleaners, surfactants, emulsifiers, various inorganic and LVP-VOC ingredients, 

fragrance, ingredients to protect the metal aerosol container (corrosion inhibitors), and 

water. The VOC ingredients include glycol ethers (such as 2-butoxyethanol), alcohol, 

and hydrocarbon distillates. Some products use LVP-VOC glycol ethers. Many 

products contain surfactant cleaners (which are generally LVP-VOCs). When fabric 

protection is claimed, the product contains a polymer to be left behind on the fabric. 

Other propellants include carbon dioxide, dimethyl ether, and nitrous oxide (N2O). The 

very low-VOC products are generally surfactant-based, and VOC levels largely reflect 

only the hydrocarbon propellants. 

 While the RTU non-aerosol products show a greater variety of formulations and 

ingredients, there are some similarities to the aerosol products when considering there 

is no propellant. The VOC ingredients may include glycol ethers (such as 

2-butoxyethanol), alcohol, hydrocarbon distillates, and d-limonene. Some products use 

LVP-VOC glycol ether or LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents. Surfactants are common; 

sodium lauryl sulfate is typical. Some products are shampoos, formulated to remove 

particles and inorganic contaminants, and may address oily dirt to some extent as well. 

The few that reported solid (powder or granular) and gel/semisolid products in this 

subcategory showed varied formulations. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limits for Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner are 5 percent VOC by 

weight for aerosol products, and 1 percent VOC for RTU non-aerosol products, effective 

December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-4, using emissions adjusted to 2010, the 

proposed limits will result in an estimated emission reduction of 302 pounds per day, or 

about 0.15 tons per day. 

 Table VI-4 also shows that about 10 percent of the market for aerosol products, 

and 25 percent of the RTU non-aerosol market, currently comply with the proposed 

VOC limits. 

 The proposed 5 percent VOC limit for aerosol products would allow 

approximately 1 to 2 percent VOC cleaning solvent, along with 3 to 4 percent VOC 

hydrocarbon propellant, in water-based formulations. The VOC may be glycol ethers 

such as 2-butoxyethanol, alcohol, or hydrocarbon solvent. Another option is use of 

non-VOC propellants, such as N2O, to enable up to 5 percent VOC cleaning solvent. A 

third option is to use up to 5 percent VOC hydrocarbon propellant, and rely on 

LVP-VOC surfactant cleaners, LVP-VOC solvent cleaners such as glycol ethers, and 

inorganic cleaners. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 69 

Table VI-4 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Proposal* 

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Aerosol 5 7 10 147 150 

Non-Aerosol 1 54 25 149 152 

Total -------- 61 --------- 296 302 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

 The proposed 1 percent VOC limit for RTU non-aerosol products is intended to 

enable up to 1 percent VOC cleaning solvent. Many products are already below 

1 percent VOC. As with aerosol products, the main cleaning ingredients are LVP-VOC 

surfactant or LVP-VOC glycol ethers. 

 The 2003 survey data show very limited use of perchloroethylene (an exempt 

chlorinated compound) and trichloroethylene (a VOC chlorinated compound) in this 

category. While ARB staff believes these toxic air contaminants are not likely to be 

used as cleaning solvents in the future reformulated products, ARB staff is proposing 

that perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride be prohibited in 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners. This prohibition is proposed to ensure that manufacturers 

do not choose to reformulate with toxic chlorinated solvents in response to the lower 

VOC limits. Staff has determined that currently available formulation technologies do 

not contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or methylene chloride, thus they are 

not needed to comply with the proposed standard. See Chapter VIII for a discussion of 

the health effects of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride. 

Issues:

a. Issue: The sales-weighted average (SWA) for Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner 

(non-aerosol-RTU), complying market share, and tons per day VOC reduction do 

not appear consistent. 

Response: The SWA includes high-VOC sell-through and non-complying 

products, some with VOC content considerably above the 3 percent VOC limit in 

effect in 2003. However, the emission reduction must be corrected to avoid 

double-counting reductions associated with a prior rulemaking, and to not 

overestimate the emission reduction from the current rulemaking. The correction 

is done by lowering all high-VOC products above the limit, down to the 3 percent 

VOC limit in effect in 2003. This makes the uncorrected SWA appear 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 70 

inconsistently high, compared with the corrected VOC reduction. Also, there 

were substantial sales of low-VOC products complying with the proposed 

1 percent VOC level, and hence well below the 3 percent VOC limit in effect in 

2003. This additionally makes the SWA appear inconsistently high compared 

with the relatively high complying market share with the 1 percent VOC proposed 

limit. 

b. Issue: Lowering of the VOC limit for aerosol Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner to 

5 percent by weight could impact the feasibility of foaming products to not leave 

soil-attracting residues. A lowering of the VOC limit could also adversely impact 

the ability of the propellant to empty the can. As such, we suggest the VOC limit 

be set no lower than 6 percent by weight. 

Response: The 2003 survey data show several aerosol foaming products, using 

conventional hydrocarbon propellants, complying with the proposed 5 percent 

VOC limit for aerosol products. Also, we do not expect the concentration of LVPVOC cleaners, in reformulated products, to be high enough to cause residue 

problems. Regarding propellant use, a few reported products contained only 3.0 

to 3.5 percent VOC propellant. We therefore believe there would be no problem 

with either soil-attracting residues or with emptying the aerosol container. 

c. Issue: Non-VOC propellants such as HFC-152a are not suitable for foaming 

aerosol products, because the non-VOC propellants lack the solubility of 

conventional hydrocarbon propellants, needed for adequate foam generation. 

Response: As discussed above, the 2003 survey data show several foaming 

products, using conventional hydrocarbon propellants, complying with the 

proposed 5 percent VOC limit for aerosol products. We believe the use of nonVOC propellants, such as HFC-152a, is generally not necessary, so there should 

be no problem with foam generation. 

d. Issue: For Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner (non-aerosol-RTU), any lowering of the 

current 3 percent VOC limit could impact the feasibility of products to not leave 

soil-attracting residues. 

Response: The 2003 survey data show that many RTU non-aerosol products 

comprising 25 percent market share already comply with the proposed 1 percent 

VOC limit. Therefore, we believe there should be no problem with soil-attracting 

residues. 

e. Issue: Some products listed as Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner (non-aerosol-RTU) 

may actually be Spot Removers, which do not belong with Carpet/Upholstery 

Cleaners. 

Response: Generally, products are categorized as reported by the marketer, 

and if clearly mis-categorized, with adjustments by ARB staff. Some product 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 71 

names and label claims may be inconsistent. If a product is both a Spot 

Remover and a Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, we would consider the product a 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner if label directions recommend broad-area (nonlocalized) use of the product. 

f. Issue: Precleaner liquid and powder products are not Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner 

- non-aerosol RTU products. 

Response: These products already fall into the definition of Carpet and 

Upholstery Cleaner in section 94508(a)(26) of the Consumer Products 

Regulation. As non-aerosol RTU products, they have been subject to the 

currently effective 3 percent VOC limit since January 1, 2001. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

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

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures I. 

June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 

3. Dusting Aid 

Product Category Description:

Dusting Aid means a product designed to assist in removing dust and other soils 

from floors and other surfaces without leaving a wax or silicone-based coating. Dusting 

Aids do not include Pressurized Gas Duster Products, or Furniture Maintenance 

Products, which are regulated as separate categories. 

 

 The Board adopted standards limiting the VOC content of Dusting Aids in 

January of 1992 as part of Phase II of the consumer products rulemaking. Two tiers of 

standards were adopted for aerosol products. The first tier set a VOC limit of 

35 percent by weight, effective on January 1, 1995. The VOC limit was reduced to 

25 percent by weight, effective January 1, 1997. In addition, the Board adopted a 

7 percent VOC limit for non-aerosol Dusting Aids, effective January 1, 1995, (ARB, 

1991a). 

Table VI-5 below summarizes sales and VOC emissions from Dusting Aids 

based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown 

to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 3,108 pounds per day. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 72 

Table VI-5 

Dusting Aid* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol 41 2451 565 

Non-aerosol 38 657 13 

Total 79 3108 578 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions). 

Estimated VOC emissions from the entire category are 578 pounds per day, or 

about 0.29 tons per day. As shown in Table VI-5, aerosol Dusting Aids account for 

79 percent of the total category emissions. Aerosol Dusting Aids have a sales-weighted 

average VOC content of about 23 percent by weight. The non-aerosol products, which 

include liquids, liquid impregnated wipes, and pump sprays, have a sales-weighted 

average VOC content of approximately 21 percent. 

Product Use and Marketing:

Dusting Aids are products that assist in removing dust and other soils from floors 

and other surfaces without leaving a wax or silicone based coating. The product is 

applied to dust mops, dust cloths, or feather dusters to increase the ability of the mop 

head or cloth to attract and hold dust particles, lint, pet dander, hair, and dirt. These 

products are used on furniture, molding, window blinds, ceiling fans, window frames and 

sills, radiators, woodwork, floors and any other surface where dust collects. Dusting 

Aids are also used as a filter dressing for heating and cooling systems to attract dust, 

dirt, lint, and pollen to keep it from entering the system. Some products may also be 

labeled to remove fingerprints, allergens, smudges, or oil-based stains from surfaces 

such as wood paneling, cabinets, furniture, or floors. 

Dusting Aids contain oils or cationic quaternary ammonium compounds that 

attract negatively charged dust to the cloth or mop head. To prevent leaving a slippery 

residue on floors, some products recommend that the product be applied to the mop 

head the day prior to use. This cure time allows the product to penetrate and diffuse 

throughout the dust mop strands. For wood surfaces, Dusting Aids are marketed to be 

used between polishes to remove surface dullness. 

While there is some overlap in the functions provided by Furniture Maintenance 

Products and Dusting Aids, the categories can be distinguished. Dusting Aids are 

primarily used for dusting, including dusting of furniture and floors, without leaving a wax 

or silicone-based coating. Furniture Maintenance Products are used primarily to polish 

furniture, leaving a wax or silicone-based protective coating. Although some Furniture 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 73 

Maintenance Products may be used to dust furniture, they are not used for dusting 

floors, because they would leave a slippery residue. 

Product Formulation: 

Dusting Aids typically contain water, LVP-VOCs, VOCs, hydrocarbon propellants 

(in aerosols), and small amounts of other agents such as emulsifiers, dust attractants 

and fragrances (ARB, 2004a). The active ingredients used to lift and absorb dust 

particles can be a light hydrocarbon oil, orange oil, or a cationic quaternary ammonium 

compound. 

The solvents used in Dusting Aids include water; hydrocarbons, such as odorless 

mineral spirits or petroleum distillates; LVP-VOCs such as glycol ethers; or volatile 

methyl siloxanes. Aerosol products typically contain hydrocarbon propellants such as 

propane and isobutane. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

The proposed VOC limit for aerosol Dusting Aids is 17 percent by weight, 

effective December 31, 2010. The proposed VOC limit for non-aerosol Dusting Aids is 

3 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-6, the 

proposed limits will result in an estimated VOC reduction of 155 pounds per day, or 

about 0.08 tons per day. The proposed 3 percent by weight VOC limit for non-aerosol 

products is not expected to achieve reductions in VOC emissions. Requiring further 

reductions was not cost-effective. The limits are designed to be consistent with those 

for Furniture Maintenance Products. 

Table VI-6 also shows that about 5 percent of the market currently complies with 

the proposed 17 percent VOC limit for aerosol Dusting Aids. For non-aerosol Dusting 

Aids, 77 percent of the market complies with the proposed 3 percent VOC limit. 

As described in the Product Use and Marketing section, there is some overlap in 

the functions provided by Furniture Maintenance Products and Dusting Aids. Because 

of the similarity in formulation and function, we expect that the technology used in 

Furniture Maintenance Products can be transferred for use in Dusting Aids. 

Reformulation options include the use of LVP-VOC hydrocarbons, LVP-VOC glycol 

ethers, and water.