4. K. Staff Report, In itial Statement of Reasons.

## California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT S 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 C alifornia Air Resources Board. Publication does not signify that the contents refl ect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade name s 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 Se ction David Mallory, P.E., Manager, Measures Development Section Judy Yee, Manager, Implementation Section Janette M. Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Bran ch Robert Barham, Ph.D., Assistant Chief, Stationary S ource Division Robert Fletcher, P.E., Chief, Stationary Source Div ision

May 9, 2008

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report and the proposed amendments to the Cons umer Products Regulation were developed by the following Air Resources Board staf f:

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 Wongi 

### 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 Opportunitie s........................................ 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 Lim its .................................. 15

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

................................................... ..... 17

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

IV. Emissions..........................................

................................................... ................. 26

A. Criteria Pollutants and Ambient Air Quality Standar ds ....................................... 26

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

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

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

V. Proposed Amendments to the Consumer Products Regula tion ............................ 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 Prop osed ............................. 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 o r Local Agencies................. 158

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

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

G. Analysis of the Combined Impacts on Per-Unit Cost f rom Recurring and Nonrecurring Costs.................................

................................................... ....... 170

H. Other Possible Economic Impacts from Proposed Amend ments ..................... 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 Measu res .............................. 194

F. Risk Assessment for Reduced Exposure to Ozone and T ACs ......................... 201

G. Alternative Means of Compliance.................... ................................................. 20 2

H. Environmental Justice ..............................

................................................... ..... 202iii

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 Product s Survey ................... 207

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

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

................................................... .... 208

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

### LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 Global Warming Potential of Selected Co mpounds Used in

..................

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

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

Table ES-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Red uctions at Effective

............

Date............................................... ............................................... ES-1 2

Table ES-4 Summary of Complying Products and Compl ying

.................................

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

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

Table IV-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone , PM 10 and PM 2.5 ................. 29

Table IV-2 Global Warming Potential of Selected Co mpounds used in

..................

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

Table IV-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Red uctions 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 Modifi cation.................................... 53

Table V-3 Proposed VOC Limit, Product Forms, and E ffective 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 ...... ......................... 90v

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 percen t or less

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

Table VI-26 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 perc ent 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 (R OEs) for Typical

....................

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

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

Table VII-5 Estimated Total Nonrecurring Fixed Cos ts to Comply with

....................

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

Table VII-6 Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for A RB Consumer Product

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

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

Table VII-8 Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impac ts 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 E ffective

............

Date...............................................

................................................... 183

Table VIII-2 Pollutant-Specific Health Effects Values Used for D etermining

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

### LIST OF FIGURES

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

Figure IV-1 2007 Area Designations for State Ambie nt Air Quality Standards

.........

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

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

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

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

PM2.5..............................................

................................................... 33

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

### 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 Regulator y Actions

Appendix D: Summary of Ingredient Reformulation Co sts

Appendix E: Acronyms Used in This Report

### State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendment s to the

California Consumer Products Regulation

Executive SummaryExecutive Summary - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In this rulemaking, California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff is proposing amendments to the Consumer Products Regul ation that are designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) and air toxi c emissions. The proposed amendments would also reduce the global warming pot ential (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 Cali fornia’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 design ed in accordance with the Discrete Early Action Measure requirements as set f orth in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).

The proposed amendments would set new VOC limits f or multiple product categories. When fully implemented, about 5.8 tons per day VOC emission reduction would be achieved. The proposed amendments would a lso set the first GWP limit for consumer products. Reductions in the use of compou nds with high GWP is equivalent to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 0.20 millio n metric tons (MMT CO 2 e) 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 compo und from the definition of VOC, and language modifications would clarify an d improve existing regulatory provisions.

In developing the proposal, staff evaluated the ec onomic and environmental impacts. Staff found that the proposed amendments should result in an overall environmental benefit in that exposure to ground-le vel ozone and TACs would be reduced. Reducing the use of compounds with high G WP would have a beneficial impact on climate change. No significant adverse e nvironmental or economic impacts

were identified.

This Executive Summary, together with Appendix A, the Technical Support Document, is the Initial Statement of Reasons for P roposed 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, provid es a description of the staff’s proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regula tion, and explains the rationale for the proposed changes. In accordance with Government Code section 11346.2(a)(1), Chapter V of the Technical S upport 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 produc ts used by household and institutional consumers. Examples include detergen ts; cleaning products; floor finishes; personal care products; lawn and garden products; d isinfectants; automotive specialty products; and aerosol paints.

The Health and Safety Code sets forth ARB’s author ity to regulate consumer products to control VOCs and GHGs. Section 41712 s pecifies requirements to reduce VOC emissions as a ground-level ozone control strat egy. 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 417 12, along with subsequent amendments, requires ARB to adopt regulations to ac hieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products. The CCAA specified that attainment of the California State ambient air qual ity standard is necessary to promote and protect public health, particularly of children , older people, and those with respiratory diseases. The Legislature also directe d that these standards be attained by the earliest practicable date.

Prior to adoption, the Board must determine that ad equate 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 no t eliminate any product form, and that recommendations from health professionals be consid ered 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 Solu tions 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, c ommencing with section 38500, contains the provisions. AB 32 requires ARB to dev elop regulations and consider market-based compliance mechanisms that will ultima tely restore California’s GHG emissions to the 1990 baseline year by 2020. Beyon d 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 progr ess, described as Discrete Early Action Measures, to reduce GHGs. Discrete Ea rly Action Measures are defined as regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions that become enforceable byExecutive Summary - 3

January 1, 2010. Reduction of compounds with high GWP that are used in consumer products has been designated as a Discrete Early Ac tion Measure.

B. EXISTING REGULATIONS

Over the last twenty years, the Board has taken nu merous actions to fulfill the legislative mandate pertaining to the regulation of consumer products. Three regulations have been adopted that affect 115 consu mer 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 ch lorinated compounds in 63 categories. In addition, two voluntary regulati ons, the Alternative Control Plan and the Hairspray Credit Program have been adopted to p rovide 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 Produ cts Regulation Workgroup (CPRWG), was established in 2004. Participation in the CPRWG was open to any member of the public. The CPRWG participated in th e development of the 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Survey), which serves as the basis for this proposal. The CPRWG was instrumenta l in the development of the 2004 and 2006 amendments, as well as these proposed amen dments. Consumer product manufacturers, chemical producers, marketers, trade associations, environmental groups, air districts, and various other stakeholde rs, have all actively participated.

Further outreach, beyond the CPRWG, was conducted to identify and involve stakeholders in the development of the Discrete Ear ly Action Measure for GHG reductions. For example, in February 2008, ARB con ducted 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 rule making were deferred from consideration as part of the 2006 rulemaking. Duri ng that rulemaking, numerous issues were raised that required additional evaluation and analysis in these categories. In addition to the outreach for the 2006 rulemaking, w here proposals for these categories were initially discussed, a public CPRWG meeting an d a public workshop were conducted on August 29, 2007 and March 5, 2008, res pectively. Prior to meetings, staff posted materials for review and comment to the CPRW G activity website.Executive Summary - 4

D. EMISSIONS

Although each consumer product may seem to be a sma ll source of emissions, the cumulative use of these products by over 37 mil lion Californians results in significant emissions (CA DOF, 2007).

1. VOC Emissions

Consumer products are a significant source of VOC e missions in California and contribute to the formation of both ground-level oz one and particulate matter pollution. This section, however, focuses on reducing emission s from consumer products as a ground-level ozone control strategy. As evidence o f 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 perc ent 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 Manage ment District (SCAQMD) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ( SJVAPCD), respectively. Without further actions, consumer product emissions are exp ected to grow to approximately 270 tons per day in 2020, representing 14 percent o f 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 i mportant 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. Whi le the ozone forming potential of consumer product emissions is less than some oth er source categories (for e.g., mobile sources), clearly, further reductions in VOC emissions from consumer products and other VOC sources are needed, if ozone attainme nt is to be achieved.

Despite these projections, ARB’s consumer products program is a success story. Since 1989, regulations adopted by the ARB, and sub sequent amendments, have significantly reduced VOC emissions from consumer p roducts. Absent these regulations today, consumer product emissions would likely be over 440 tons per day. Figure ES-1 shows that statewide consumer product V OC 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 lik ely 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



### YearEmissions (tpd) Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th an d e m ission red u ctions )

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 fro m several data sources.

Emissions for 1990 to 2006 are taken from the ARB F orecasted Emissions by Summary Category, 2007 Almanac (ARB, 2007h). Emissions are then grown in proportion to population increase. Population growth is in accor dance with estimates in the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewi de Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2 008d). For categories regulated in the 2006 Consumer Products Amendments, emission val ues from the 2003 Survey and the projected emissions reductions resulting from t he 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 mag nitude of the climate change problem justifies reductions from both large and sm all sources, wherever such measures

are feasible and cost-effective. While staff is st ill in the process of developing the consumer product GHG inventory, we do know from pas t surveys that several compounds with high GWP are used in consumer produc ts.

Consumer products use various GHGs, mostly as prope llants. To a much lesser degree, several solvents with fairly high GWPs are used. The propellants are typically low photochemically reactive compounds that are exe mpt VOCs. They have been used as a reformulation strategy to reduce VOC content. Compounds of interest includeExecutive Summary - 6

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). However, the propellants HFC-134a and HFC-152a are the predominate GHGs used in consumer products today. Compressed CO 2 is also used as a propellant, but the GHG emission s are negligible compared to the emissions from HFCs. Table ES-1 sh ows 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**

CO 2 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 Repor t 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

CO 2 . Reductions in the use of HFC-134a are being purs ued in this rulemaking.

GHG emissions data are available from a 2003 Surve y of consumer products. Staff has evaluated these data for possible GHG red uctions and development of new regulations for this rulemaking. In the 2006 Surve y, 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 prod ucts, and evaluate the data for product categories where compounds with high GWP ar e used to determine if there is a potential to reduce their use without increasing th e 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 goal s, respectively. The role of consumer products to meet these mandates is describ ed in this section.

1. Consumer Products and California’s State Implem entation Plan

In 1988, with the passing of the CCAA, the importan ce of controlling emissions from consumer products was set forth. To meet the federal standards, in 1994 emission reductions from consumer products became part of th e California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In this SIP, consumer produc ts measures were put in place to work towards attaining the federal peak one-hour am bient 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 standa rd.Executive Summary - 7

In response to these mandates, three regulations wi th 150 VOC limits for 115 categories of consumer products (including antiperspirants and deodorants and 36 aerosol coatings categories) have been establish ed to date. The adopted limits will achieve a 44 percent reduction in overall VOC emiss ions 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 stan dard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight-hours. In the Strategy, ARB ha s committed to an additional 30 to 40 tons per day VOC reduction from consumer product s by 2014. Under the commitment, rulemakings are to occur in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe with reductions occurring between 2010 to 2012. Further rulemaking s 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 o f this, the Strategy includes a commitment to explore innovative reduction strategi es in the longer term. These measures would include investigating emission reduc tion opportunities through reactivity-based standards and alternative market-b ased mechanisms. If these mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reduc tions from the consumer products source category, then other approaches wou ld be evaluated. Some of these approaches include the purchase of VOC credits; and funding of special projects to reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from poll ution sources outside of the consumer products industry.

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are inte nded to partially fulfill the Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from consume r products.

2. Discrete Early Action Measures and Scoping Plan

Among other things, AB 32 requires ARB to design an d adopt an overall Scoping Plan, by January 1, 2009, that identifies how GHG e missions can be reduced back to 1990 levels. AB 32 additionally recognizes that im mediate 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” b y 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 t o 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 ca lls 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 subsetExecutive Summary - 8

of these early action measures was identified as “D iscrete Early Action Measures.” One of the approved Discrete Early Action Measures desi gnated 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 CO 2 e per year from consumer products (ARB, 2007b).

The objective of the Consumer Products Discrete Ea rly Action Measure is to reduce the use of compounds with high GWP when alte rnatives are available. To achieve reductions of GHG emissions, consumer produ ct 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 produ cts is a long-term effort. We are continuing to develop an emission inventory that wi ll be used to evaluate reduction opportunities.

We are proposing a GWP limit for Pressurized Gas D uster products. If adopted by ARB, this will be the first GWP limit in place f or 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 propos ed amendments to reduce VOC emissions. The 2003 Survey provided staff with detailed information on the formulations of consumer products, including comple te speciation of VOCs, low vapor pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) solvents, and key exempt ing redients. 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 estima tes for 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were grown from 2003 sales data and the st ate Department of Finance’s population estimates. Annual population growth fac tors were calculated using the 2008 State population figures and the California Environ mental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). We estimate that the c ategories proposed for VOC regulation contribute about 22.6 tons per day of 20 08 VOC emissions.

The GHG emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters are estimated to be

0.37 MMT CO 2 e per year. This estimate is based on the results of the Pressurized Gas Duster Survey update collected in February, 2008 (A RB, 2008a).

G. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

First of all, to reflect that the “Regulation to R educe Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products” now contains requirements f or both VOC and GHG reductions, we are proposing to rename the regulati on. 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 t he Consumer Products Regulation: section 94508 “Definitions,” section 9 4509 “Standards for Consumer Products,” section 94510 “Exemptions,” section 9451 2 "Administrative Requirements,” section 94513 “Reporting Requirements,” and section 94515 “Test Methods.” In addition to the amendments described below, a numbe r of non-substantive grammatical and organizational changes are also proposed. Chap ter V of the Technical Support Document contains more complete information on each proposal.

1. Definitions (Section 94508)

Section 94508, “Definitions,” provides all the ter ms used in the Consumer Products Regulation which are not self-explanatory. As shown in Table ES-2, the proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regula tion include new or revised definitions. These definitions are necessary to de fine categories proposed for VOC limits or greenhouse gas limits, or to improve enfo rceability of the Consumer Products Regulation. Note that a number of categories have been previously regulated and we are now proposing lower VOC limits. Several defini tions require further clarification.

Global Warming Potential and Global Warming Potenti al Value : We are proposing new definitions for Global Warming Potent ial (GWP) and Global Warming Potential Value (GWP Value). These definitions are necessary to implement our proposal to reduce the use of compounds with high G WPs in Pressurized Gas Dusters. We are using the GWP definition of the Intergovernm ental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). GWP provides a measure of a compound’s imp act on global warming compared to CO 2 . 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 compou nds with high GWP, the definition would further specify that, if the SAR does not con tain a GWP value for a specific chemical or compound, then the IPCC Fourth Assessme nt Report (FAR) GWP value for that chemical or compound will be used. If there i s no GWP value listed for a chemical or compound in the SAR or the FAR, then the GWP val ue 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 s urfaces that cannot be cleaned with a solvent. In developing the proposal for Pre ssurized Gas Dusters, staff became aware that there are certain niche uses of these pr oducts where flammability is aExecutive Summary-10 Table ES-2 Proposed New and Modified Definitions

Previously Unregulated Categories with New VOC Limi ts

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 pr opellant with a high GWP. At the present time, no technology exists that would maint ain this non-flammable aspect if these products were mandated to comply with our pro posed GWP limit for this category. Therefore, we are proposing a modification to the d efinition 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 V OC limit.

Not for Retail Sale : The current regulation includes several provisio ns where an exemption from compliance is provided if certain cr iteria are met. For example, General Purpose Degreasers and Lubricants are not subject t o 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 recei ved numerous inquiries as to what “not for retail sale” means. Therefore, staff is propos ing to define this term. As proposed, Not for Retail Sale means that a product is sold ex clusively to establishments that manufacture or construct goods or commodities, or a re 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 outle ts 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 S elected Halogenated Chemicals” ARB staff determined that use of HFE 7200 has negli gible 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 belie ves the exemption is appropriate.

2. Proposed Amendments to Section 94509

Table of Standards : The proposed regulatory action would amend the e xisting Consumer Products Regulation by specifying VOC limi ts for the product categories shown in Table ES-3. Some of the categories are pr eviously unregulated and others are currently regulated. For the currently regulat ed categories we are proposing lower

VOC limits. The new or modified VOC limits would b ecome effective between December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2015, as indicat ed 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 r eflected in the Table of Standards in section 94509(a). Note that in some cases diffe rent VOC limits are proposed based on product form.

Extended effective dates are proposed for categori es where the proposed limits, while feasible, will require additional resources t o develop complying products. This is especially true for the technology forcing second t ier 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 pro ducts element in the Strategy. Several VOC limit proposals in Table ES-3 warrant further e xplanation as provided below.

a. Proposal for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer P roduct : Fabric SoftenerSingle Use Dryer Product is a previously unregulate d category. As shown in Table ES-3, a grams of VOC per use limit is bein g proposed for these products, rather than a percent by weight limit. O ur 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, limi t 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 E ffective 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 Cleaner a Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 Dusting Aid a Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00

Fabric Protectant a Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product a All 0.05 grams per use** 0.52 0.21

Floor Maintenance Product a All 1 0.11 0.07

Floor Polish or Wax –

Wood Floor Wax a All 70 0.06 0.01

Glass Cleaner b Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03

Motor Vehicle Wash a All 0.2 0.38 0.14

25 c 4.08 2.04 Multi-purpose Lubricant – excluding solid & semisolid c/e All 10 e 1.27

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00

Odor Remover/Eliminator a Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03

Penetrant c All 25 0.40 0.15 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20% or less fragrance) d All 75 + 10.89 0.41

Pressurized Gas Duster a All 1 0 0

Chemically Curing b Nonaerosol 3 1.9 0.22 Sealant or Caulking Compound Non-Chemically

Curing a Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 Spot Remover a Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00

Tire or Wheel Cleaner a Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06

Windshield Water Repellent a 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 reduct ions equivalent b: 12/31/2012 to 2.6% VOC limit, including fragrance c : 12/31/2013 *** Omitted to protect confidentiality d: 1 2/31/2014

+ Remove “Grandfather” clauses e: 12/31/2 015Executive Summary -13

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

Table ES-3, staff is proposing to reinstate the lon g-standing exemption for solid and paste forms of Furniture Maintenance Prod ucts. This exemption was inadvertently omitted during the 2006 rulemakin g. The exemption clarifies that solid and paste forms of this type o f 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 pr oducts 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 believe s this approach to packaging may be diminishing anticipated VOC reductions, and is a po tential circumvention of the intent of the regulation. Therefore, staff proposes a modifi cation to section 94509(b)(4), clarifying that products sold in pump spray contain ers 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) spe cify prohibitions on use of certain chlorinated compound s in specified categories. We are proposing to clarify the date coding requirement th at must be met to qualify as a “sellthrough” product. As proposed, the product would n eed 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 subs ection (q) within section 94509 to prohibit the use of methylene chloride, perchloroet hylene, 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 (CEQ A), ARB is required to identify and mitigate any possible adverse environm ental impacts of regulatory actions. We believe that it is unlikely, but possi ble, that manufacturers may, in response to new VOC limits, choose to reformulate w ith chlorinated solvents that are TACs. Therefore, because there are many products t hat comply with the proposed limits, without the use of these chlorinated solven ts, prohibiting their use is appropriate to protect the public from exposure to these TACs.

In evaluating the use of these TACs, staff has beco me aware that certain Penetrants are designed for use on energized equipm ent. In these situations the products must be non-flammable as a safety precauti on. 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 Princ ipal Display Panel: “Nonflammable: For use on Energized Equipment Only,” n ot be subject to this prohibition. They would, however, be required to meet the propos ed VOC limits.Executive Summary -14

Proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters : The reduction of GHGs in consumer products has been designated as a Discrete Early Ac tion 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 ste p, staff is proposing, in new subsection 94509(r)(1), that Pressurized Gas Duster s shall not contain any compound that has a GWP of 150 or greater. Staff is also pr oposing in section 94509(r)(2) that Pressurized Gas Dusters would be provided a one-yea r sell-through after the effective

date of the limits.

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

does not increase as a result of reformulation to m eet GWP limits, a one percent by weight VOC limit, including fragrance, is also bein g proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. The proposal would also prohibit use of t he 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, o f 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 D usters may contain very small quantities of contaminants. This provision would a llow Pressurized Gas Dusters that contain those contaminants, present at very low lev els, to comply with the regulatory provisions.

Staff has also become aware that certain Pressurize d Gas Dusters are designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the products must be non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide t his non-flammable aspect, higher GWP propellants are used. At present time, staff i s not aware of alternative propellants that can perform this function. Theref ore, staff is proposing that Pressurized Gas Dusters that specify on the Princip al Display Panel “Energized Equipment use only” be exempt from compliance with both the VOC and GWP limit.

Requirements for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer P roduct : Staff is proposing a new subsection 94509(s) to describe the VOC conte nt 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 design ed 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 she ets to comply. This would diminish emission reductions and potentially lead to increas ing the solid waste stream. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the grams per u se limit is proposed. The 0.05 grams of VOC limit is designed to provide emis sion reductions roughly equivalent to a 2.6 percent by weight VOC per use limit, inclu ding fragrance. Because the limit already accounts for the fragrance, there is no nee d to provide the fragrance exemption contained in section 94510(c) for these p roducts. 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 pe rcent or less fragrance are required to meet an 80 percent or a 75 percent by w eight VOC limit, depending on when they first were introduced to the market. Pro ducts existing prior to ARB setting these two-tier limits do not need to comply with ei ther limit. Products that were introduced between 1995 and 1999 are required to me et the 80 percent limit, but did

not need to reformulate to meet the second-tier Jan uary 1, 1999, limit. Only products introduced after January 1, 1999, are required to m eet the 75 percent limit. These exemptions, or “Grandfather” clauses, are contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). Staff is proposing to remove these “Grandfather” cl auses. 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, 20 14. The additional compliance deadline is proposed to account for the large numbe r 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, Administr ative

Requirements

Proposed Modification to Product Dating Requirement s : Currently, section 94512(b)(1) specifies that a product must c learly display the date or code indicating the date of manufacture. We are proposi ng language to clarify that a sequential batch number on a product package does n ot 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 applicabl e regulatory category and VOC limit as a percent by weight. Because different VOC limi ts are proposed, staff believes this is necessary to easily distinguish between Chemical ly Curing and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compounds for enforcemen t 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 te chnology advances as expected,

staff believes that manufacturers should demonstrat e their progress toward meeting

these limits.Executive Summary -16

As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Multi-purpo se Lubricant and Penetrant manufacturers would need to supply by March 31, 201 2, detailed written updates on their research and development efforts undertaken t o 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 info rmation on the raw materials evaluated for use, maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) value s for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated, the function of the raw material evaluat ed, 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 b e for calendar year 2013.

Should technical or commercial issues arise, or if it appears reductions could occur within a shorter timeframe, staff would devel op appropriate measures to ensure air quality benefits occur as soon as possible.

6. Proposed Amendments to Section 94515, Test Metho ds

Staff is proposing to clarify that ARB’s Method 31 0 be used as the analytical

method to determine GWP content. This method alrea dy 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. Manufact urers 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 Techni cal Support Document). To comply with VOC limits, VOC solvents or propellants will n eed to be replaced, or partially replaced, with non-VOC ingredients. This may requi re switching to a water-based formulation, using acetone or another exempt solven t, increasing product solids, or formulating with a non-VOC propellant. Manufacture rs may also need to change the valve, container, delivery system, or the other com ponents 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 conta minants.

To meet the GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster, m anufacturers of noncomplying products will need to substitute a lower GWP propellant for the currently used higher GWP propellant. We expect that manufacturer s will substitute HFC-152a for HFC-134a. We are also proposing a VOC limit for Pr essurized Gas Duster products to ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as produc ts 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 a s the number of products that currently comply relative to total number of produc ts reported.Executive Summary -17 Table ES-4 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Markets hares

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 3 95 / 196 23 Sealant or 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a) grown to 2008, and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update * Grams per use limit provides emissions reducti ons equivalent to 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit, including fragrance

** Remove “Grandfather” clauses *** Omitted to protect confidentialityExecutive Summary -18

Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed am endments through the use of the Innovative Products Provision (IPP), or the Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The IPP allows manufacturers of “innovative products” t o comply with the Consumer Products Regulation if they demonstrate through cle ar and convincing evidence that their product will result in less VOC emissions tha n a complying product that meets the applicable VOC limit. The innovative product may re sult in less emissions due to some characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery system, or other factors.

The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissi ons 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 applicati on 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 em issions.

Although not shown in Tables ES-4, the complying m arket-share (based on sales) for the GHG limit for the Pressurized Gas Du ster category is 86 percent. Moreover, 18 of 90 products currently comply with t he GWP limit of 150. Based on these complying market-shares and the number of com plying products, staff believes the proposed VOC and GHG limits are commercially an d technologically feasible.

I. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Staff evaluated the costs to comply with the propo sed limits for potential impacts on profitability and other aspects of businesses (w ith particular attention to California businesses), the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the lim its, and the estimated cost impacts to consumers. Chapter VII of the Technical Support Do cument 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 pou nd 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 tha n most other consumer product regulations. For example, the CE of amendments pro posed in 2004 and 2006 was about $2.40 and $2.35, respectively, per pound of V OC reduced, over a 10-year lifetime. However, the CE of other consumer produc t rulemakings has been comparable to this proposal. For example, the CE o f amendments related to aerosol adhesives in 2000, was about $6.00 per pound of VOC reduced.

The CE for the proposed amendments reflects that VO C reductions from consumer products are becoming more difficult to ac hieve. A number of smaller emitting categories are being proposed for regulati on, with resulting small reductions. Several categories are relatively costly because la rge numbers of products need to be reformulated to achieve fairly low VOC emission red uction totals.Executive Summary -19

It was further determined that the cost of the meas ure to reduce GHG from Pressurized Gas Duster products is about $450,000 o ver ten years, or $45,000 per year. This yields a CE of about $0.22 per metric t on 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 methodologi es previously used for the Consumer Products Regulations and Cal/EPA guideline s for conducting cost analyses for major regulations. We determined that the regu lation would cost businesses and individuals about $260 million over the 10-year lif etime. 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 certai n products or undergo minor product formulation changes, and for other categori es, manufacturers would undergo complete production line overhaul and equipment rep lacement rather than simple retooling.

Staff believes that the regulation cost and CE dete rmination methodologies are quite conservative, and are thus in most cases over -estimated. There are several

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

determine the overall cost and cost effectiveness o f 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 reformulatio n pathway, making minor adjustments to a product’s formulation, or simply e liminating higher VOC products. We

believe that most manufacturers would choose the lo west 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 prod uct. We believe that few manufacturers would need to take the high cost refo rmulation 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 est imates were performed separately for aerosol and non-aerosol products respectively. The analysis shows that greater costs will be incurred during the first tier reformulatio n than the second tier reformulation. This results from the assumption that significant high e nd costs will be incurred in the first tier reformulation, but not all of these costs would nec essarily be duplicated in the second tier reformulation. If major plant modifications o r new equipment purchases are needed to meet either tier of the VOC limits, a manufactur er 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 eit her the first tier reformulation or the second tier reformulation, but not both. Either as sumption, that higher costs would beExecutive 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-esti mation of costs is the assumptions used for the raw ingredient costs of th e reformulated products. For the product categories for which VOC limits are propose d, we assumed that if the raw ingredients used in the reformulated product yielde d 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 refo rmulation options. However, in

the case of Pressurized Gas Dusters we assumed that reformulation would yield a raw material savings, and incorporated the decreased co st in to the overall cost estimate. We believe that this approach is appropriate becaus e, in order to comply with the proposed GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters, the re 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 appropriat e 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 manufa cturers are able and do pass along their costs to consumers. The average increa se 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 20 06 Amendments. In that rulemaking, we found the average cost per unit increase to be a bout $0.17 per unit.

Based on our analysis, we expect most manufacturer s to be able to absorb the added costs of the proposed regulation without an a dverse 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 increa sed research and development, equipment purchase and other investment costs, is p resumed to impact a business’ ROE and, therefore, its profitability. Our analysi s indicates the estimated change in ROE is about a 0.7 to 4.0 percent change. The aver age 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 overe stimate the impact on

business because it assumes that all of the costs o f the proposed limits will be absorbed by manufacturers. In reality, we expect that at le ast some of the investment costs to comply with the proposed limits will be passed on t o consumers. The analysis presumes that some cost mitigation will occur due t o “technology-transfer” between product lines and from third-party manufacturers (i .e., contract fillers) who fill essentially equivalent products for a number of competing busin esses.Executive Summary -21

While we expect that most businesses will be able t o absorb, or pass through, the costs of the proposed amendments without signif icant adverse impacts on their profitability, there is the possibility that some i ndividual 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 compl ying products, or to absorb and/or pass through the increased cost resulting from thei r compliance with the proposed

amendments.

Based on our analysis, we do not expect the propos ed amendments to have a significant impact on employment, or business creat ion, elimination, or expansion. We also do not expect the regulation to have a signifi cant impact on the competitiveness of California businesses compared with those outside o f California. This is because all companies that sell these products in California wo uld have to meet the proposed requirements, whether located in California or outs ide of California.

The Air Resources Board (ARB) would have costs ass ociated with adoption of the proposed amendments. Adoption of the amendment s would necessitate an increase in ARB staff to properly enforce the Consu mer Products Regulation. These proposed amendments are setting new limits for a nu mber 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 t oxic emissions. The proposed amendments would also reduce the use of co mpounds 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 o zone concentrations, climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, air toxic em issions, water quality, solid waste disposal, and energy use. A complete analysis of p otential environmental impacts is contained in Chapter VIII of the Technical Support Document.

Because VOCs are ozone precursors, the VOC reducti on 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 emi ssions is about 1.50 pounds of ozone per pound of VOC emitted (based on the MIR sc ale, title 17, CCR, sections 94700-94701), then we predict the resultin g ozone reductions would be about 9 tons per day. No other significant positive or n egative impacts were identified.

The expected reduction in use of compounds with hi gh GWP would be equivalent to reducing 0.20 MMT of CO 2 per year. This reduction will help meet Californi a’s desire for early reductions and also assist in meeting our 2020 target. All technologicallyExecutive Summary -22

feasible cost-effective reductions need to be pursu ed 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, reformu lated 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 po sitive or negative impacts were

identified.

The proposal would also prohibit the use of the TA C solvents methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in six cat egories (except in certain niche applications where non-flammable products are neede d). Exposure to these air toxics would be reduced by about 0.2 tons per day. The pr ohibition is proposed as a mitigation measure under CEQA. The prohibition wou ld ensure that manufacturers will not switch to using these solvents as a reformulati on option. However, it is likely that this could lead to a very slight increase in VOC em issions because products currently formulated with these TAC compounds would have to r eplace them—likely with VOC ingredients. Staff has determined that the reducti on 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 definitio n of VOC should have an overall benefit in reducing VOC emissions and strat ospheric ozone depleting emissions.

HFE 7200 could be a suitable substitute for some VO Cs, and can be used to replace stratospheric ozone depleting compounds such as HCF C-141b. No other significant positive or negative impacts were identified.

Related to solid waste and energy impact, no signi ficant impacts were identified. However, it has been suggested that end-use consume rs of Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Products may begin using more than a single s heet per drying cycle, or may switch to using the liquid product form. This coul d 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 moni tor product sales trends to ensure that unintended consequences of establishing the pr oposed VOC limit do not occur.

Other language and definitional changes proposed s hould have an overall positive impact because these provisions are design ed to aid in enforcing the regulation.

This proposal is consistent with the ARB’s Environm ental Justice Policy to reduce health risks in all communities, including l ow-income and minority communities. Generally, use of consumer products is fairly unifo rm 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 thes e reasons, we do not believe that people of any given race, culture, or income would be more impacted than any othersExecutive Summary -23

would. All Californians should benefit equally fro m the reduction in VOC, GHG and TAC emissions from the consumer product categories prop osed for regulation.

K. FUTURE PLANS

Future activities include continued review of the 2006 Consumer Products Survey. This survey will serve as the basis for ad ditional VOC and GHG reductions measures for consumer products. Additional reducti ons are needed to meet consumer product reduction commitments in the Strategy and a s a Discrete Early Action Measure under AB 32. Work is also ongoing to assess the mo st feasible approach to regulating Paint and Lacquer Thinner, and evaluating exposure to TACs used in Nail Coatings.

The Strategy also includes a longer term commitmen t to assess innovative

measures to further reduce VOC emissions from consu mer products.

L. RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the Board adopt the proposed ame ndments to the Consumer Products Regulation.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assess ment 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 Measur es To Reduce Greenhouse

Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board C onsideration

. 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 Commercia l 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 – Clean ing 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. Clima te 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. Harr is, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, eds. Cambridge University Press. Cambr idge, U.K. (IPCC, 1996)

### Appendix A

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendment s to the

California Consumer Products Regulation

Technical Support DocumentTechnical 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 Pro ducts Regulation. The amendments are designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) and air toxic

emissions. The amendments would also reduce the us e 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 Strateg y for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan. The proposed amendment to red uce the use of high GWP compounds is designed in accordance with the Discre te Early Action Measure requirements set forth in the California Global War ming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).

As proposed, other amendments would exclude a comp ound from the definition of VOC, language modifications would clarify and im prove 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 ce rtain TACs are not used as products are reformulated to meet new limits.

This Technical Support Document, Appendix A, prese nts ARB staff’s technical justification and analysis of the proposed amendmen ts. It is part of the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for Proposed Amendments to the Ca lifornia Consumer Products Regulation. The proposed amendments can be found i n 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 pr ogram related to the control of VOC and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;

• information on the process used to develop the pro posed amendments;

• an assessment of why the proposed amendments meet the requirements of State law;

• a review of the emissions from the categories prop osed for regulation and the overall need for the emission reductions;

• a description of the proposed amendments;

• an analysis of the environmental and expected econ omic 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 “th e 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 st andards. The CCAA added section 41712 to the California Health and Safety C ode. Section 41712, along with subsequent amendments, requires ARB to adopt regula tions to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOC emissions from consumer p roducts. Prior to adoption, the Board must determine that adequate data exist to es tablish both of the following:

• the regulations are necessary to attain State and federal ambient air quality standards; and

• the regulations are commercially and technological ly feasible.

Section 41712 defines a consumer product as a chem ically formulated product used by household and institutional consumers. Con sumer products include, but are not limited to: detergents; cleaning compounds; po lishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products such as antiperspirants and hairsprays; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; automotive spe cialty products; and aerosol paints. Other paint products, such as furniture or architec tural coatings, are not part of ARB’s consumer products program because local air distric ts regulate them.

The Act further stipulates that regulations adopte d 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 emiss ions 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 g round-level ozone concentrations, as part of the overall effort to attain ambient air qu ality 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 secti ons require ARB to develop regulations and consider market mechanisms that wil l 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 towar ds 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, 201 0. Beyond the requirements of AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 ca lls 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 f ulfill the legislative mandate pertaining to the regulation of VOCs in consumer pr oducts, including antiperspirants, deodorants, and aerosol coating products. Three re gulations have been adopted that affect 115 consumer product categories by setting 1 50 VOC limits. These limits have resulted in reducing emissions by about 200 tons pe r day, an overall 44 percent

reduction in VOC emissions. We have also reduced e xposure to TACs. Emissions of TACs have been reduced by 13 tons per day by prohib iting use of certain chlorinated compounds in 63 categories. In addition, two volun tary regulations, the Alternative Control Plan and the Hairspray Credit Program have been adopted to provide compliance flexibility to companies. These five re gulations are codified in title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94500 to 94575:

• Antiperspirants and Deodorants (Article 1, section s 94500-94506.5);

• Consumer Products (Article 2, sections 94507-94517 );

• Aerosol Coating Products (Article 3, sections 9452 0-94528);

• Alternative Control Plan (Article 4, sections 9454 0-94555); and

• Hairspray Credit Program (Article 5, sections 9456 0-94575).

Regulation of consumer products began in 1989 with adoption of the Antiperspirants and Deodorants Regulation. The “ge neral” Consumer Products Regulation was approved in 1990 and has been amende d numerous times. The most recent amendments to the Consumer Products Regulati on were approved in 2004 and 2006 (ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). The Aerosol Coating s Regulation was adopted in 1995 and was amended in 2000. A complete summary o f consumer products program regulatory actions with dates of regulatory amendme nts are provided in Appendix C.

2. Consumer Products and the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

State Implementation Plans

Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealth y levels of ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and inha lable particulate matter to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) describing how th ey will attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

A SIP is a compilation of new and previously submi tted 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 regu lations, and limits on emissions from consumer products. State law designates ARB as the lead agency for all purposesTechnical 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 subm it 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 t he Federal Register. The Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, S ubpart 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 contri bute to concentrations of both ground-level ozone and particulate matter with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM 2.5 ). The link between consumer product VOC emissions and ground-level ozone concentrations is well-established, and quant ified. However, their impact on

PM 2.5 concentrations is less clear. Because VOCs are oz one precursors, specific consumer product control measures have been develop ed related to ozone control.

These measures have been included in SIPs. For thi s reason, our summary here focuses on consumer product strategies that have be en, and are, designed to meet ambient air quality standards for ozone.

1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozon e

On November 15, 1994, the ARB adopted the Californ ia State Implementation Plan for Ozone (1994 SIP). This plan included meas ures 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 w as a key element of the 1994 SIP. Several rulemakings were proposed and adopted to wo rk toward meeting the SIP

commitment.

2003 State and Federal Strategy and 2003 South Coa st SIP

On October 23, 2003, the ARB adopted the 2003 State wide 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 t he federal one-hour ozone

standard.

The 2003 SIP contained two measures for consumer pr oducts. These measures were designated as CONS-1 and CONS-2, and are summa rized below.

• Measure CONS-1: Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2006.

The CONS-1 measure was designed to achieve VOC emis sion reductions from consumer products of at least 2.3 tons per day in t he South Coast Air Basin and 5.3 tons per day statewide by 2010. On June 26, 20 04, 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 measureTechnical Support Document Chapter I - 5

became legally effective on June 20, 2005. As of t his writing, all but one of the CONS-1

VOC limits are in full effect. The CONS-1 commitme nt has been fulfilled.

• Measure CONS-2: Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2008-2010.

The ARB also committed to present new consumer prod uct 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 pe r day in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010. Statewide, the CONS-2 measure was to achi eve 20-35 tons per day in emission reductions by 2010. Amendments to the Con sumer Products Regulation in 2006, which will result in reductions of 4.9 tons p er day in South Coast and 11.5 tons per day statewide, partially fulfilled this commitm ent (ARB, 2006a).

The 2003 SIP was withdrawn from consideration and i s no longer in effect. However, the remaining commitment from the CONS-2 m easure has been incorporated in the 2007 Strategy commitment which is described below.

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implemen tation Plan (Strategy)

In July 1997, U.S. EPA established a new federal oz one standard. As opposed to a one-hour peak ozone standard, the new ozone st andard 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 wa s adopted at the September 25, 2007 Board hearing (ARB, 2007d). Thi s is a comprehensive Strategy designed to attain federal air quality standards th rough technologically feasible, cost effective, and far reaching measures. The Strategy describes the scope of the State’s

ozone and PM 2.5 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 ei ght-hour standard is more stringent than the one-hour standard, U.S. EPA set presumptiv e deadlines that allow more time for attainment. Nonetheless, the measures Californ ia has adopted to meet the one-hour standard remain in place and will deliver substanti al 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 thisTechnical 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 ac tions are to be followed with additional rulemakings in the 2010 to 2012 timefram e. Reductions are to occur between 2012 and 2014 (ARB, 2007d).

Further reductions from consumer products are impor tant because VOC emissions from consumer products are predicted to b ecome the largest source of VOC emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, and the thi rd largest source in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin by 2020. The Strategy, in combina tion with local actions, provides emission reductions necessary to meet the eight-hou r 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 commitmen t to explore innovative reduction strategies in the longer term. One such measure wo uld include investigating emission reduction opportunities through reactivity-based st andards. A reactivity-based approach relies on the scientific principle that different c hemical compounds react to form different amounts of ozone in the atmosphere. Reactivity-bas ed standards reduce emissions of the most photochemically reactive compounds.

Alternative market-based mechanisms would also be e xplored to encourage the development, distribution, and purchase of cleaner, very low, or zero emitting products. Examples of mechanisms to explore are an environmen tal product labeling program, programs where companies set their own emission red uction goals, and the use of print and broadcast media for public education. If these mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reductions from the consumer pr oducts source category, then other approaches would be evaluated. Some of these approaches include the purchase of VOC emission credits; and funding of special pro jects to reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from pollution sources outsid e of the consumer products industry.

Future State Implementation Plans

Up-to-date information on SIP activities can be fou nd on ARB’s website at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm. On Mar ch 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 standar d 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 impr ove 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, addition al measures beyond those to meet the

federal standard will be needed.Technical Support Document Chapter I - 7

3. Consumer Products and the California Global War ming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)

Various consumer products may contain GHGs in their formulations. Most often these GHGs are propellants such as hydrofluorocarbo ns (HFCs) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). To a lesser extent some GHGs are used as solven ts.

As mentioned earlier, AB 32 requires immediate prog ress, described as Discrete Early Action Measures. These measures require ARB to identify and adopt regulations to reduce GHG emissions. These early actions are t o be enforceable by January 1, 2010. Reduction of compounds with high GWP used in consumer products has been designated as a Discrete Early Action Meas ure. Therefore, as a Discrete Early Action measure, ARB staff has committed to el iminate or reduce the use of GHG compounds with high GWP that are used in consumer p roducts. The GHG emission reduction from consumer products is estimated to be 0.25 million metric tons of CO 2 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 nati onal consumer products regulation, the “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart C, Sections 59.20 1 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 emi ssion standards for 24 categories of consumer products. The rule became effective on Se ptember 11, 1998, and the VOC limits became effective on December 10, 1998. Ther e are similarities and differences between the California and national consumer produc ts regulations; however, the national rule does not preclude states from adoptin g more stringent regulations.

In the summer of 2006 U.S. EPA began work on amend ments to their existing national consumer products rules. Their amendments are based on California’s CONS-1 (2004 Consumer Products Regulation Amendment s) categories and limits. The amendments are expected to become effective on January 1, 2009.

U.S. EPA has also recently promulgated a national r ule for aerosol coatings (spray paints) based on ARB’s Aerosol Coatings Regu lation. This is a reactivity-based regulation. The national aerosol coatings rule wil l become effective on January 1, 2009. (U.S. EPA, 2007).

Although the national consumer products rule is si milar in many aspects to the California regulation, it is less effective in redu cing VOC emissions from consumer products. The national regulations are generally l ess stringent than ARB’s and apply to fewer categories. The existing national consumer p roducts rule achieves a 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions, while California’s exis ting consumer products and aerosol coatings regulations have already achieved a 50 per cent reduction in the regulated categories. The federal regulation also does not p rohibit use of any toxic compounds.Technical Support Document Chapter I - 8

The California Consumer Products Regulation has pr ohibited use of certain toxic compounds in 63 categories, resulting in a reductio n of toxic compound emissions of 13 tons per day. Because California has unique air quality problems, reducing VOC emissions from all categories, including consumer p roducts, to the maximum extent feasible, is necessary to attain the federal and St ate ambient air quality standards for

ozone.

There are no national consumer products rules rela ted to reducing GHG

emissions.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. State Strategy for Californ ia’s 2007 Implementation Plan

. Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the Air Resourc es Board on September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s 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 Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Produc ts, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichloroben zene Solid Air Fresheners

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products . May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b)

4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. N ational 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. A ir Quality Designations and

Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambie nt 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. N ational Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products. (40 CFR Part 59)

. Federal Register: September 11, 1998. Volume 63. Nu mber 176: 48819-48847. (U.S. EPA, 1998)

7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. N ational Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final Rule . Federal Register: July 18, 1997. Volume 62. Number 138: 38855-38896. (U.S. EPA, 199 7)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 al low for public input. This Chapter also describes the staff’s eva luation of emission reduction opportunities, and alternatives to the final propos al that were considered.

A. PUBLIC PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING PROPOSED LIMITS

In this Chapter, we describe our process to involv e 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 CPRW G was, and continues to be open to any member of the public. The CPRWG participated i n the development of the 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Surve y), 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 amen dments.

Further outreach, beyond the CPRWG, was conducted to identify and involve stakeholders in the development of the Discrete Ear ly Action Measure for greenhouse gas reductions. As part of the process, in Februar y 2008, ARB conducted a survey update for the Pressurized Gas Duster category. Th e 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 fr om 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 GroupTechnical 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 agenc ies, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the United Stat es Environmental Protection Agency were also involved in the process.

ARB staff maintains a mailing list of over 5,000 c ompanies and interested parties, including environmental organizations, which receiv ed information throughout the development of the proposed amendments. We have es tablished an electronic list serve, which has over 1,300 subscribers, to allow s ubscribers 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 catego ries 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 proposa l for the 2008 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments to the CPRWG activit y website. These proposals were discussed at the CPRWG meeting on August 29, 2 007. At the meeting, staff discussed the draft regulatory categories, proposed limits, and the rulemaking timeline. The meeting served as a forum for stakeholder comme nts 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 m odifications 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 modificatio ns to the Consumer Products Regulation. These included the proposed definition s and volatile organic compound (VOC) limits, the toxics prohibition proposal, a Di screte 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, st aff held numerous individual meetings, and teleconferences, with stakeholders. At several of these meetings, requested by industry associations, industry repres entatives presented technical information related to reformulation of products fo r which VOC and GHG limits are proposed. Staff also reviewed survey data, perform ed shelf surveys, and researched technical literature, patents, and trade journals d uring the development of this proposal.

B. STAFF EVALUATION OF EMISSION REDUCTION OPPORTUNI TIES

Development of the proposed amendments began with the review of the 2003 Survey. The 2003 Survey collected information on a bout 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 ov er 26,000 products (ARB, 2004a). The 2003 Survey, in conjunction with the recently c onducted 2006 survey, and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update, conducted in 2008 (ARB, 2008c), are designed to obtain the comprehensive information necessary t o develop new consumer product emission standards that together would achieve a mi nimum VOC emission reduction of 30 to 40 tons per day by 2014, and GHG emission red uctions equivalent to reducing an

estimated 0.25 million metric tons of CO 2 (MMT CO 2 e) by 2020 (see Chapter I, Section C. Background).

The focus of the 2003 Survey was primarily on cate gories where an opportunity

for emission reductions was identified. After the 2003 Survey data were compiled, staff prioritized product categories for possible regulat ion. This process began with the elimination of categories where staff believed no v iable opportunity for reduction existed at the current time. As a result of this process, staff initially identified 61 product categories for potential emission reduction opportu nities which included 21 previously unregulated categories. As a result, in 2006, lowe r VOC limits were set for 13 previously regulated categories and new VOC limi ts were set for 3 categories.

In this same timeframe, staff postponed considerat ion of some product categories to provide adequate time to evaluate the feasibility of VOC reductions and/or time to address technical issues. In addition, sta ff revised emission estimates to address product mis-categorization, products that w ere already regulated under local air district rules, and reporting errors. The categori es 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 i t was also possible to reduce the use of compounds with high GWPs in Pressurized Gas Dust ers.

During the workgroup and workshop process, staff p resented 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 e arly 2008.Technical Support Document Chapter II - 12

Staff also identified an additional VOC emission r eduction 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 th is compound is used to replace VOCs, providing an exemption will result in additio nal VOC emission reductions.

In developing the proposed amendments, staff reorg anized 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 consid eration and evaluation of comments.

C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Government Code section 11346.2 requires ARB to co nsider and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulation and provide reasons for rejecting

those alternatives. Staff identified three alterna tive approaches to the current proposal: “No Action,” “Set Different Limits,” and “Set Limit s for Different Categories.”

Alternative One- No Action

A “No Action” alternative would be to forego adopti ng the proposed amendments, or delay adoption of the proposed measures. The “N o Action” alternative would result in failing to make progress toward meeting our SIP com mitment, 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 meeti ng 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 red uction 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 thoroug hly evaluated each category for which a limit is proposed. Staff proposed limi ts based on low emitting technologies reported in the 2003 Survey. Stakeholders provided additional information pertinent to the categories and, in some cases, proposed alterna tive limits. Staff evaluated all

comments and determined the most feasible limit fro m all of the alternatives proposed or considered. The final proposal contains limits that were determined to obtain the maximum feasible reduction, were commercially and t echnologically feasible, preserved product forms (as required by Health and Safety Cod e Section 41712), and together achieved the necessary emission reductions to parti ally fulfill ARB’s SIP commitments and the Discrete Early Action Measures to reduce GH Gs.

Alternative Three – Set Limits for Different Catego ries

Staff carefully reviewed the 2003 Survey data to s elect categories where reductions were feasible. Considering all availabl e information, staff determined that atTechnical 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 investigat ion. Examples of categories where further investigation is needed include Air Freshen ers, Nail Coatings, and Paint and Lacquer Thinners.

Related to GHG reductions, the Pressurized Gas Dus ter 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 wo uld 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 regu lated categories.

We also note that categories surveyed in the 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey will be evaluated and additional op portunities 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 Commerci al 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 requirement s 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 auth ority to control emissions from a very diverse number of products sold statewi de to household and commercial consumers. By law, “Consumer Product" means a chem ically formulated product used by household and institutional consumers, including , but not limited to, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosme tics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizer s; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products; but does not include other pain t products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings.

Section 41712 requires the Board to adopt regulati ons to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer prod ucts after making certain determinations. Prior to adoption, the Board must determine that adequate data exist to establish that the regulations are necessary to att ain State and federal ambient air quality standards and the regulations are commercia lly and technologically feasible and necessary. Amendments to section 41712 in 1996 spe cified 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 liq uid, 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 o f 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 professi onals 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 wh y the proposed amendments are necessary to attain ambient air qual ity standards, and why the data are adequate to adopt the proposed limits. Our foc us in this Chapter is related to our rationale of why the proposed VOC limits are commer cially and technologically feasible. During the early development of consumer product re gulations, ARB staff established guidelines in setting the limits to ensure that the se 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 feas ible” and “commercially feasible,” as they relate to VOC reductions.

B. GHG REDUCTIONS

Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) was signed into law in 20 06. It is codified in Health and Safety Code section 38500 et. seq . These sections require ARB to develop regulation s 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 J une 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 goa ls, in accordance with section 38562, certain criteria are to be met. Amo ng other things, the regulations must be equitable, minimize costs, and maximize the bene fits to California. The GHG regulations are also required to be technologically feasible and cost-effective.

Section D describes the criteria to be met in devel oping GHG reductions.

C. TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY OF VOC LIMITS

The proposed VOC limits were set based on the lowe r 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 tha t the various product forms within each category would be preserved. For the majority of t he categories proposed for regulation, there are products on the market which currently comply. Where there is low complying market share, lower emission technology e xists that can provide a pathway for compliance.

1. Technologically Feasible

Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) requires t hat the Board adopt consumer product regulations that are “technologica lly 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 o f the following criteria: (1) the limit is already being met by at least one product within th e 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 exi st which would allow products to comply. Proposed limits were set at VOC levels tha t staff determined could be met without increased use of toxic air contaminants, GH Gs, or ozone-depleting compounds.Technical Support Document Chapter III - 16

General reformulation options include addition of w ater with co-solvents, development of emulsion products, use of low vapor pressure (LV P)-VOC solvents, use of non-VOC propellants, and use of exempt solvents.

2. Commercially Feasible

Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) also requi res the Board to adopt consumer product regulations that are “commercially feasible.” The term “commercially feasible” is not defined in State law. In interpre ting this term, the staff has utilized the reasoning employed by the United States Court of Ap peals 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 th at the U. S. EPA could promulgate technology-forcing motor vehicle emission limits which might result in fewer models and a more limited cho ice of engine types for consumers, as long as the basic market demand for new passenge r 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 ne ed of consumers for a product to fulfill a basic, necessary function. This must be distinguished from consumer “preference,” which may be towards specific attribu tes of a particular product. A “preference” is the choice of consumers for a certa in product or products based upon fragrance, cost, texture, etc.

By way of example, a consumer has a basic market d emand for a glass cleaner to remove soils, grease, dirt or grime from their w indows. Glass cleaners may be formulated with glycol ether solvents or with ammon ia. Consumers may choose an ammoniated glass cleaner because they prefer the performance characteristics, or they may choose a non-ammoniated glass cleaner because t hey 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 “ba sic 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” inter pretation of “basic market demand” is inconsistent with the reasoning from the International Harvester case. To adopt such a narrow interpretation would be inconsi stent with the clearly expressed legislative intent that “...the State board shall a dopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in reactive organic compounds em itted by consumer products...” (Health and Safety Code section 41712(a)). In orde r to achieve emission reductions, manufacturers of high VOC products which perform th e same basic function as lower VOC counterparts must reduce the VOCs in their prod ucts. 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, thenTechnical Support Document Chapter III - 17

each product would require a limit unto itself. Us ing this approach, it would be impossible to achieve the maximum feasible reductio n in VOC emissions.

Every currently marketed product has some unique f eatures that differentiate it from other products. Consumers who purchase a prod uct have demonstrated a preference over other competing products. This dis tinction between “preference” and “basic market demand” was clearly made in the Inter national 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 unav ailability of certain kinds of vehicles and engine types people preferred (e.g. fast “muscl e” 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 m arket demand to be met for each product category, even though it may no longer be p ossible 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 Januar y 1, 2010 to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHGs. Among other things, the reductions must be real, permanent, qua ntifiable, 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 th e GHG content for one category, Pressurized Gas Dusters. These products are used to clean computer parts

and other sensitive electronics. Below is a discus sion of why we believe that this rulemaking meets the requirements of State law.

1. The State Board shall adopt rules and regulation s in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feas ible and costeffective greenhouse gas emission reduction from so urces 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 co nsultation 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 o f emissions allowances where appropriate, in a manner that is e quitable, seeks to

minimize costs and maximize the total benefits to C alifornia, and encourages early action to reduce greenhouse gas em issions.

The Pressurized Gas Dusters proposed limit was set to maximize emission reductions uniformly through out the State, while m inimizing costs. All manufacturers of Pressurized Gas Dusters, intended for sale in Calif ornia, are required to meet the specified emission limit. No manufacturer or retai ler would be allowed to sell non-complying products in California, therefore no user anywhere in California should be able to purchase non-complying products. Reduct ions in the potency of emissions

will track with sales of Pressurized Gas Dusters. Therefore, as Pressurized Gas Dusters are used throughout the State, reductions w ould occur throughout the State. Greater reductions will likely occur in population centers.

The cost-effectiveness (CE) of the proposed limit i s about $0.22 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalents. See Chapter VII, Econo mic Impacts, for the detailed description.

The emission limit yields the maximum technically f easible reduction in the potency of GHG. As set forth in Chapter VI, Descri ption of Product Categories, Section B, Greenhouse Gas Categories, further reduc tions from this category were determined not to be technologically and commercial ly feasible.

Nothing in the regulation discourages early action to reduce GHG emissions. In fact, many manufacturers have reduced the potency o f GHG emissions over the last ten years by reformulating products to contain compound s with lower GWP. We expect this trend to continue prior to the effective date of th e 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 sh elves.

3. Ensure that activities undertaken to comply with the regulations do not disproportionately impact low-income communitie s.

Use of consumer products is ubiquitous; no dispropo rtionate localized impacts are expected. Greater reductions would occur in po pulation centers, where more people reside. Compliance with this proposal will not require manufacturing plant changes that could cause a localized emission impac t. 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 reduc ed their greenhouse gas emissions prior to the implementation of this s ection receive appropriate credit for early voluntary reductions.

This requirement is not applicable to this proposed rulemaking.

5. Ensure that activities undertaken pursuant to th e regulations complement, and do not interfere with, efforts to a chieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality stan dards 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 crit eria pollutants or toxic air contaminants. For Pressurized Gas Dusters specific ally, 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 p roposal will prevent manufacturers from replacing high GWP compounds with hydrocarbon propellants. While hydrocarbon propellants have low GWP, and would meet the GWP li mit of 150, they contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. In addition, a pr ohibition on the use of the toxic chlorinated compounds Methylene Chloride (MeCl) and Perchloroethylene (Perc) is proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. This prohibi tion will prevent manufacturers from using MeCl and Perc in Pressurized Gas Duster produ cts. 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 Environmenta l Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that adverse impacts from adopting regulat ions be mitigated. See Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, for a more detailed descript ion.

6. Consider cost-effectiveness of these regulations

.

The CE of the proposed limit is about $0.22 per met ric ton of carbon dioxide equivalents. See Chapter VII, Economic Impacts, fo r the detailed description.

7. Consider overall societal benefits, including re ductions 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 Dus ters is not expected to cause any adverse impacts to society or the environ ment. California will benefit from

the reduction of GHG emissions. As discussed in th e response to criterion five above, the proposal will not cause an increase in VOC or t oxic air contaminant emissions. See Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, for a detailed description. In addition, no increase in the solid waste stream is anticipated. Reformul ated 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 implementi ng and complying with these regulations.

The administrative burden of complying with the pro posed emission limit to

manufacturers and marketers is minimal. Product re formulation will require replacing one propellant with another, and should be fairly s traight-forward. The proposal has very few administrative requirements. Affected pro ducts would be required to include on the label or can a date, or date code, indicatin g date of manufacture. No recordkeeping or product registration would be requ ired. However, certain Pressurized Gas Dusters products may need to modify their produ ct labels. The proposed modified

definition for Pressurized Gas Dusters includes an exemption for products that are labeled to be used “exclusively on energized equipm ent.” 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 c hanging 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 em ission limit set by the State causes manufacturing or other activities to be disp laced outside of California. If leakage were to occur, emissions, jobs and other economic b enefits to California would be lost. The emission benefits of the proposed limit track w ith sales of Pressurized Gas Dusters. In addition, the proposed emission limit for Pressu rized 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 o f each source or category of sources to statewide emissions of green house gases.

The projected reductions that will be achieved thro ugh implementation of the proposed limit are equivalent to reducing about 0.2 0 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. While this reduction may appear somewhat modest, when the reduction is considered in conjunction with ant icipated future GHG reductions from consumer products, and current and future reduction s from other categories, the total reductions could become quite significant. The con sumer products category encompasses hundreds of categories. When each is c onsidered alone they are relatively small emitters, but with regard to GHG e missions the aggregate emissions may become more important. This situation necessit ates achieving relatively small reductions from a large number of categories to ach ieve significant overall reductions.Technical Support Document Chapter III - 21

11. The greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceabl e by the state

board.

The emissions and emission reductions for Pressuriz ed Gas Dusters were calculated based on data submitted by manufacturers and marketers of the affected products. The data were submitted in accordance wi th 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 defi ned by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1995: Second Assessment Re port (IPCC, 1996). The Consumer Products Regulation specifies the date upo n which the proposed emission limit would become effective and further specifies how the emission limit is to be enforced. Further, the regulation specifies the te st methods used to determine if products comply with the applicable emission standa rds. Finally, the regulation requires that products subject to emission limits must be da ted or date coded. The date of manufacture enables enforcement personnel to ascert ain if a product is subject to the applicable emission limit, based on the limit effec tive date. Once the amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation are approved by th e 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 additio n to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that ot herwise 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 Pr essurized Gas Dusters is the first emission limitation affecting the product category. No other existing State, federal or other requirements, specific to products sold in Ca lifornia, affecting emissions of GHG

from Pressurized Gas Dusters exist. We are aware o f requirements affecting GHG emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters products sol d in the state of Wisconsin, but those requirements do not affect products sold in C alifornia.

13. If applicable, the greenhouse gas emission redu ction 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 Pr essurized 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 availa ble economic and

scientific information and its assessment of existi ng and projected technological capabilities when adopting the regula tions required by

the law.

ARB staff used the best available economic and sci entific information available to develop the proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters. The description in this Section B documents that the proposal was deve loped 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 Prop osed, 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. Manufact urers 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 Techni cal Support Document). To comply with VOC limits, VOC solvents or propellants will n eed to be replaced, or partially replaced, with non-VOC ingredients. This may requi re switching to a water-based formulation, using acetone or another exempt solven t, increasing product solids, or formulating with a non-VOC propellant. Manufacture rs may also need to change the valve, container, delivery system, or the other com ponents 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 conta minants.

To meet the GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster, m anufacturers of non-complying products will need to substitute a lo wer GWP propellant for the currently used higher GWP propellant. We expect that manufac turers will substitute HFC-152a for HFC-134a. We are also proposing a VOC limit fo r Pressurized Gas Duster products to ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as pro ducts 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 limit s, data related to the complying market-shares (based on sales), as well a s the number of products that currently comply relative to total number of produc ts reported.

Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed am endments through the use of the Innovative Products Provision (IPP), or the Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The IPP allows manufacturers of “innovative products” t o comply with the Consumer Products Regulation if they demonstrate through cle ar and convincing evidence that their product will result in less VOC emissions tha n a complying product that meets theTechnical Support Document Chapter III - 23

applicable VOC limit. The innovative product may re sult in less emissions due to some characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery system, or other factors.

The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissi ons 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 applicati on 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 em issions.

Table III-1 shows that the complying marketshares (except where confidential) range from 3 to 100 percent. Generally, in those c ategories 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 Pressurize d Gas Duster category. Moreover, 18 of 90 products currently comply with the GWP lim it of 150. Based on these complying marketshares and the number of complying products, staff believes the proposed VOC and GHG limits are commercially and te chnologically feasible.Technical Support Document Chapter III - 24 Table III-1 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Market shares

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 3 95 / 196 23 Sealant or 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a) grown to 2008, and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update * Grams per use limit provides emissions reducti ons equivalent to 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit, including fragrance

** Remove “Grandfather” clauses *** Omitted to protect confidentialityTechnical Support Document Chapter III - 25

REFERENCES

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fors ter, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywo od, 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 Radiativ e Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contributi on of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change

. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marqu is, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge Univers ity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007)

2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climat e 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. Harr is, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, eds. Cambridge University Press. Cambr idge, 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 Ch apter, we provide an overview of criteria pollutant air quality and climate change p roblems, which are germane to the regulation of consumer products. We also describe the need for significant emission reductions from all sources contributing to these p roblems. This Chapter includes a description of the need for the regulation of consu mer products and provides a summary of the emissions from the categories propos ed for regulation. For a detailed summary of the product categories, the reader is re ferred to Chapter VI.

A. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STAN DARDS

Federal and state ambient air quality standards hav e 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 o n the level of an air pollutant in the outdoor (ambient) air necessary to protect public h ealth. Both ARB and U.S. EPA are

authorized to set standards.

Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from cons umer products contribute

to the formation of both ozone and fine PM. Other sources of VOCs include emissions from fuel combustion, coatings and paints. PM poll ution is the result of both direct and

indirect emissions. Direct sources of PM include e missions from fuel combustion and

wind erosion of soil. Indirect PM emissions result from the chemical reaction of VOCs, nitrogen oxides (NO x) , sulfur oxides and other chemicals in the atmosphe re.

1. Ozone

Ozone formation in the lower atmosphere results fr om a series of chemical reactions between VOCs and nitrogen oxides in the p resence of sunlight. The rate of ozone generation is related closely to both the amo unt and reactivity of VOC emissions

as well as the amount of NO
x 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 persiste nt 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. Califor nia experienced 41 percent of the total national ozone exposure, based on analysis of popul ation 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 a ffects 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 exposur es to ozone concentrations considerably above ambient were seen; these changes remain even after periods ofTechnical Support Document Chapter IV - 27 exposure to clean air (U.S. EPA, 2006). Exposure t o levels of ozone above the current ambient air quality standard can lead to lung infla mmation, lung tissue damage, and a

reduction in the amount of air inhaled into the lun gs.

Ozone is a strong irritant that can cause constric tion of the muscle cells in the airways that result in symptoms such as coughing, c hest 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 ac tive children (McConnell et al

., 2002). Ozone has also been associated with prem ature death. Based on 2001-03, premature deaths from ozone expos ure 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 toxi ns and microorganisms. Other health effects associated with ozone exposure include hosp italizations 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 ani mal health, but it also affects vegetation, throughout most of California, resultin g 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 Joaqu in Valley, and Sacramento Valley, which are adjacent to the principal production area s in the State’s multibillion-dollar agricultural industry (USDA, 2006). ARB studies in dicate 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 droplet s 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 a tmospheric processes. Particles

10 micrometers or less in diameter are defined as " respirable particulate matter" or

"PM 10 .” PM 10 and particles 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM 2.5 ) can be inhaled deep into the lungs. PM 2.5 contributes significantly to regional haze and red uction of visibility in California. Besides reducing visibil ity, the acidic portion of PM (nitrates, sulfates) can harm crops, forests, aquatic and othe r ecosystems (ARB, 2002).

Considerable epidemiologic research over the past 15 years has investigated the responses of humans to PM. The principal health ef fects of PM exposure are

summarized below:

• Many studies have consistently found statistical a ssociations between PM 2.5 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 considerabl y stronger for annual average

PM 2.5 exposure than for daily average PM 2.5 . That is, long-term exposure appears to pose a greater risk of death than short-term exp osure.

• A recent study suggests that long-term exposure to PM 2.5 may influence the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in women (Miller et al ., 2007), including hospitalization or death from heart attack or strok e.

• Daily exposure to PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 lu ng disease are at greatest risk of experiencing adverse effects related to PM 2.5 exposure (Moolgavkar, 2003;

Dominici et al

., 2006; Symons et al

., 2006).

There is some evidence suggesting that air polluti on may have greater effects in children than in adults. This may be because they inhale more PM 2.5 per pound of body weight than do adults, and because they breathe mor e rapidly than adults. Adverse effects reported in children include reduced lung f unction 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 t o an area with cleaner air (Avol et al

., 2001); increased asthma and bronchitis symptoms (Ga uderman 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 o r 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 p rotecting public health. Consequently, ARB adopted a new eight-hour ozone standard of 0.07 0 parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours, while retaining the exis ting one-hour ozone standard at 0.09 ppm. Regarding particulate matter, the Board adopted stricter standards in 2002,

which include a PM 10 annual average standard of 20 micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 ) and a new annual average PM 2.5 standard of 12 μ g/m 3 . The State PM 10 standard for a 24-hour period remains at 50 μ g/m 3 . The national and State ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM are shown in Tab le IV-1.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 29 Table IV-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, PM 10 and PM 2.5

Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard National Standard

Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 μ g/m 3 ) ---------

8 hour 0.070 ppm

(137 μ g/m 3 ) 0.075 ppm*

( 147 μ g/m 3 )

PM 10 24 hour

Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 μ g/m 3

20 μ g/m 3 150 μ g/m 3

---------

PM 2.5 24 hour

Annual Arithmetic Mean --------- 12 μ g/m 3 35 μ g/m 3

15 μ g/m 3

Source: Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality S tandards 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 eigh t-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 O zone 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 CCA A 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 d esignated as non-attainment (or non-attainment-transitional, which is a subcategory of non-attainment) for the State ozone standard. As shown, unhealthy levels of ozon e are not limited to urban areas, but can be found in nearly every county in Californ ia. This map clearly indicates the extent and magnitude of the ozone problem in Califo rnia.

The areas that are non-attainment for the State ozo ne standards are also nonattainment for the previous 0.08 ppm federal eight- hour ozone standard. The federal non-attainment designations include a number of rur al 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 effect ive 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 maint ain progress towards clean air, the federal Clean Air Act prohibits backsliding on the control program.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 30 Figure IV-1Technical 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 de clined 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 a s 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-hou r standard exceedance days has been quite variable over the years. This variabili ty is due, in part, to the influence of meteorology as well as changes to the monitoring ne twork. The monitoring network was not as extensive during the 1980’s as it has be en 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 decrea se in the three-year average of the number of exceedance days of the national eight-hou r standard (ARB, 2007g). Figure IV-3 shows the ozone trend between years 198 6 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 th e 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 heal th concern in California and more emission reductions are necessary. The State Strat egy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan addresses the State measures ne cessary to meet the previous national ozone standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over e ight hours.

5. Area Designations for California Ambient Air P M 2.5 Standard

Figure IV-4 shows the counties designated as non-at tainment for the State PM 2.5 standard. As with ozone, unhealthy levels of PM 2.5 are not limited to urban areas, but can be found in many counties throughout California

.

Related to the federal PM 2.5 standard, in December 2007, ARB submitted nonattainment area recommendations and appropriate bou ndaries to U.S. EPA, in response to the new federal 24-hour PM 2.5 standard of 35 μ g/m 3 established on December 18, 2006. The non-attainment area recomme ndations are based on

2004-2006 PM 2.5 air quality monitoring data. ARB recommended that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the San J oaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), the Bay Area Air Qualit y Management District, the Sacramento Air Quality Management District, the com bined 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 PM 2.5 standard. Thus, most of the areas shown in Figure IV-4 are also non-attainment for the federal 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. The SCAQMD SIP was approved by the Board in September, 2007 and it was submitted to U.S. EPA in November, 2007. The PM 2.5 SIP for SJVAPCD is expected to be considered at the May Board meeting.

Figure IV-4Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 34 B. THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2 006

Scientists have concluded that the evidence is over whelming that the planet is warming from the higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although greenhouse gases (GHG) are naturally occur ring, 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 chang e trends. The fact that GHGs remain in the atmosphere for a very long time, and that ma n-made emissions of GHGs are continuing to increase, mean that the world will co ntinue to warm in the centuries ahead. This warming, or climate change, is a globa l 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, As sembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), was signed i nto law by the Governor in September 2006. By enacting this Legislation, the legislature declared:

“Global warming poses a serious threat to the econo mic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of Californi a. 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 dis placement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the inciden ces of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”

This legislation is codified in the California Heal th 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 reduc tion in GHG emissions by 2050.

While carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is the GHG emitted in the largest quantity, other GHGs include, but are not limited to, methane, nitr ous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Related to the role of consumer products, HFCs are the primary source of GHG emissions. To a lesser extent hydrochlorofluor ocarbons (HCFC) and hydrofluoroethers (HFE) play a role.

1. Climate Change

Climate change, or global warming, is the process w hereby emissions of anthropogenic pollutants, together with other natur ally-occurring gases, absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, leading to increases i n the overall average global temperature. The standard definition of “greenhous e gas” includes, but is not limited to, six substances as identified in the Kyoto Protocol; carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexaf luoride (SF 6 ). Changes in the atmospheric abundance of GHGs al ter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in ter ms of radiative forcing. While CO 2 is the largest contributor to radiative forcing, me thane, halocarbon, N 2 O, and other species also contribute to climate change.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 35 Controlling multiple substances that jointly contri bute 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 p roblem is the calculation made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), k nown as Global Warming Potentials (GWP) (IPCC, 2007; IPCC, 1996). The bas ic idea is to calculate the cumulative climate warming over a specified time sp an resulting from one unit mass of

the GHG emitted. The estimates of GWPs have extens ively been reviewed by many

climate scientists around the world. The IPCC is c onstantly evaluating GWP values and the assessment is generally updated every 6 years.

By convention, the GWP index is defined relative to CO 2 which has a GWP of 1. The Second Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC, 1996), de fines 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 th at of 1 kg of CO 2 . The standard units of measurement used to express the emissions of a G HG is, million metric tons of CO 2 equivalents (MMT CO 2 e) per year.

The GWP values used by ARB are generally the 1996 S AR GWP values (ARB, 2007c). These values are used when converting emis sions of GHGs to carbon dioxide equivalent values (CO 2 e). The SAR GWP values are used to be consistent w ith the Board’s Discrete Early Action Report, other statewi de and national GHG inventories, and the upcoming Scoping Plan.

The climate warming impact from emissions of GHGs i s 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 war ming impacts and the atmospheric lifetime) and thus in the assessment of GWP.

The GWP of a compound may reflect a direct effect a s well as an indirect effect on global warming. The direct effect is the warmin g due to the absorption of radiation by molecules of the compound in question. VOCs, CO 2 , 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, V OCs contribute indirectly to global warming, because they react chemically in the atmos phere 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 consume r products, as mentioned earlier, direct emissions of HFCs are the primary concern. HCFCs, HFEs, CO 2 , and N 2 O 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 p redict that if the increase in GHG emissions continues unabated, temperatures will ris e 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 ecosyst ems 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 c limate 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 w inter temperatures are warmer however, more precipitation will fall as rain, decr easing the size of the snowpack. Heavier rainfall in the winter could bring increase d flooding. Less spring runoff from a smaller snowpack will reduce the amount of water av ailable for hydroelectric power production and agricultural irrigation. Evidence o f this problem already exists. Throughout the 20th century, annual April to July s pring runoff in the Sierra Nevada has been decreasing, with water runoff declining by abo ut ten percent over the last 100 years.

Another predicted outcome of climate change is a ri se in sea level. California has already experienced a 3 to 8 inch rise in the l ast century. If the trend continues, large populations living along California's coast w ill face serious consequences such as flooding of low-lying property, loss of coastal wet lands, erosion of cliffs and beaches, saltwater contamination of drinking water, and dama ge to roads and bridges.

Air quality will also be exacerbated by increasing temperatures. Higher temperatures, strong sunlight, and stable air masse s 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 ch ange 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 an d adopt an overall Scoping Plan, by January 1, 2009, that identifies how GHG e missions 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. Acc ordingly, AB 32 required ARB to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG re duction measures” by June 30, 2007. Discrete Early Actions are Board adopted regulation s to reduce GHG emissions which are legally effective by January 1, 2010. These me asures are to become part of the State’s comprehensive strategy for achieving GHG re ductions.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 37 In June 2007, the ARB approved a list of early act ion 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 di screte early action measures. One of the approved Discrete Early Action Measures designa ted in the Early Action Report calls for the reduction in use of compounds with hi gh GWP in consumer products. The

measure is estimated to achieve an emission reducti on of 0.25 MMT CO 2 e per year from consumer products (ARB, 2007b).

The objective of the consumer products Discrete Ea rly Action measure is to reduce the impact of compounds with high GWPs when alternatives are available. Consumer product formulations may be required to re duce or eliminate the use of GHGs with high GWPs. The primary compounds of inte rest are HFCs. These compounds have direct impacts on global warming. A s mentioned previously, VOCs have an indirect effect on increasing temperatures, in that they participate in reactions leading to the formation of ground level ozone. Th erefore, our VOC reduction strategies for consumer products will also reduce the impact o f consumer products’ emissions on climate change.

The reduction in use of compounds with high GWPs i n 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 emiss ion reduction will be at this time. As we move forward, evaluate product categories, and i dentify areas where emission reductions are possible, we will quantify additiona l emission reductions as GWP limits are adopted. However, we expect to achieve the est imated reduction of

0.25 MMT CO 2 e per year through this and subsequent rulemakings.

In this rulemaking, we are making our initial prop osal to reduce GHGs in consumer products. We are proposing a GWP limit fo r Pressurized Gas Duster products. If adopted by ARB, this will be the firs t GWP standard in place for consumer products in California. ARB staff estimates the re duction from this measure to be equivalent to reducing 0.20 MMT CO 2 per year.

C. IMPORTANCE OF REGULATING CONSUMER PRODUCTS

As described in Section A and Section B of this Cha pter, consumer products emissions contribute to the formation of ground lev el ozone, PM 2.5 , and climate change. In this section, we provide information on the impo rtance of regulating these emissions.

1. VOC Emissions

Consumer products are a significant source of VOC e missions in California. This section focuses on reducing emissions from consumer products as a ground-level ozone control strategy. Although each consumer pro duct may seem to be a small source of emissions, the cumulative use of these pr oducts by over 37 million Californians results in significant emissions (CA D OF, 2007). Given the severity of theTechnical Support Document Chapter IV - 38 air pollution problems in California further dramat ic emission reductions from all sources contributing to ground-level ozone are necessary.

As evidence of the magnitude of consumer product VO C 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 invento ry. In this same year, consumer product emissions will comprise about 18 and 7 perc ent 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. mob ile sources) become effective, consumer product emissions become more i mportant 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 tit le 17, CCR section 94700-94701) as the basis for comparison, consumer product emission s are over two times less reactive

than are emissions from on-road motor vehicles. Re gardless of the ozone-forming potential of various source categories, clearly, fu rther 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 w ith numerous amendments to the regulations, have significantly reduced VOC emissio ns from consumer products. Absent these regulations today, consumer product em issions 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 woul d 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 F orecasted Emissions by Summary Category, 2007 Almanac (ARB 2007h). Emissi ons are then grown in proportion to population increase. Population grow th is in accordance with estimates in the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (C al/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicl e Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). For categories regulated in the 2006 Consumer Products Amendments, emission values from the 2003 Survey and the projected emissions re ductions 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



### YearEmissions (tpd) Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th an d e m ission red u ctions )

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 red uctions that have been realized from the ARB’s Consumer Products Program a re beginning to be partially offset by population growth. California’s populatio n is expected to grow to 40 million by 2010 (CA DOF, 2007). Therefore, ARB must continue its commitment to pursue additional technologically and commercially feasibl e reductions in consumer products

emissions.

In 1988, with the passing of the California Clean A ir Act (CCAA), the importance of controlling emissions from consumer products was set forth. To meet California ambient air quality standards the CCAA added sectio n 41712 to the Health and Safety Code. This section requires that ARB adopt regulat ions to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer prod ucts. As part of the regulatory process, ARB must determine that adequate data exis t to adopt the regulations. ARB must also determine that the regulations are techno logically and commercially feasible, necessary, and do not eliminate any product form.

To meet the federal standards, in 1994 emission red uctions from consumer products became part of the California State Implem entation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In this SIP, consumer products measures were put in pl ace to work towards attaining the federal one-hour ambient air quality standard for o zone. In 2003, ARB again reiterated the commitment to reduce consumer products VOC emis sions to meet the one-hour

federal ozone standard.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 40 In response to these mandates, three regulations wi th 150 VOC limits for 115 categories of consumer products (including antiperspirants and deodorants and 36 aerosol coatings categories) have been establish ed to date. The adopted limits will achieve a 44 percent reduction in overall VOC emiss ions from consumer products by the year 2010.

In 2007, a new SIP was adopted. This State Strateg y 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. Th e consumer products commitment in this strategy supplements the 1994 and 2003 comm itments. 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 o ccur 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 w ill continue ARB’s commitment to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products. As pr eviously 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 th e 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 o f this, the Strategy includes a commitment to explore innovative reduction strategi es in the longer term. These measures would include investigating emission reduc tion opportunities through reactivity-based standards and alternative market-b ased mechanisms. If these mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reduc tions from the consumer products source category, then other approaches wou ld be evaluated. Some of these approaches include the purchase of VOC credits; and funding of special projects to reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from poll ution sources outside of the consumer products industry.

Because significant further VOC reductions are nece ssary 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 Heal th and Safety Code provides that a regulation’s “necessity” is to be evaluated in term s of both the State and federal

standards.

The applicable State and federal laws show that bot h the U.S. Congress and the California Legislature intended progress toward cle an air to be made as quickly as possible. The CCAA specifically declares that it i s 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 a lso 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 sectio ns 172(a)(2), 181(a), and 188(c) of theTechnical Support Document Chapter IV - 41 federal Clean Air Act). For all of the reasons des cribed above, the proposed amendments are “necessary” within the meaning of se ction 41712 of the Health and Safety Code.

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are inte nded to partially fulfill the 2007 Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from co nsumer products.

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

We acknowledge that the GHG contribution of consume r 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 fea sible. While staff is still in the process of developing the consumer product GHG inventory, w e do know from past surveys that several GHGs are used in consumer products.

Consumer products use various GHGs, mostly as prope llants. To a much lesser degree, several solvents with fairly high GWPs are used. These compounds are typically low photochemically reactive compounds th at are non-VOCs and have been used as a reformulation strategy to reduce VOC cont ent. Compounds of interest include HFCs, HCFCs, HFEs, CO 2 , and N 2 O. 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 CO 2 is also used as a propellant, but the GHG emissions are negligib le 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**

CO 2 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 approximate ly ten times greater than the GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO 2 . Reductions of HFC-134a are being pursued in this rulemaking.

GHG emissions data are available from the 2003 Sur vey of consumer products. Staff has evaluated these data for possible GHG red uctions 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 highTechnical 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 c onsumer products, and evaluate the data for product categories where compounds wit h high GWP are used to determine if there is a potential to reduce them without incr easing the use of VOCs.

Because reductions are necessary to slow climate ch ange, the reductions from the amendments proposed in this report are necessar y. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, by specifying adoption of Di screte Early Action Measures in Health and Safety Code section 38560, shows that th e California Legislature intended progress toward reducing GHGs be made as quickly as possible. Because GHG reductions from consumer products have been designa ted as a Discrete Early Action Measure, to comply with State law, the proposed ame ndment 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 (Ap pendix D). Data received from the 2003 Survey formed the basis for the emissions used in this rulemaking. A complete discussion of the extensive survey proce ss is found in Chapter IV of “The Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Prod ucts Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation” released on September 29, 2006 (the 2006 Amendments).

In summary, the 2003 Survey provided staff with de tailed information on the formulations of consumer products, including comple te speciation of VOCs, low vapor pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) solvents, and key exempt ing redients (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 detai ling the aggregate sales, VOC speciation, VOC tonnage, and other key informat ion. Summary tables were also provided (certain specific data were omitted to pro tect confidential information) detailing VOC content, product form, LVP-VOC content, and oth er information. The results of the 2003 Survey were discussed at workgroup meetings, a nd input from industry was used

to correct inaccuracies in the data. For this rule making, the 2008 emissions and reduction estimates in the years when the limits be come effective (2010-2015) were grown from 2003 sales data and the State Department of Finance’s population estimates. Annual population growth factors were c alculated using the 2008 State population figures and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Popul ation and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d).Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 43 Staff is confident that the 2003 Survey had adeq uate representation of the available technologies in the market place and find s 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 wi th 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 fo r use in GHG proposal (ARB, 2008c).

In developing these proposals, staff worked extens ively with stakeholders on each category proposed for regulation. In meetings with members of industry and other interested stakeholders, extensive discussions on t he types of technologies used in each category were discussed. Numerous product lab els and associated literature for each category were analyzed. Category information was also obtained from trade journals, Internet sites, textbooks, patents, and d irectly from manufacturers.

2. Emission Estimates for Categories

The total emissions from the categories proposed f or regulation are estimated to be about 22.6 tons per day in 2008. Table IV-3 sum marizes these emissions, as well as the anticipated VOC reduction when the proposed lim its 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 availabl e 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 fo r Pressurized Gas Dusters was feasible. During the public process of develop ing the proposed GWP limit, staff held meetings and teleconferences to solicit inform ation and comments from industry associations and industry representatives. At this time, industry representatives alerted ARB staff that significant changes in the gas duste r market had occurred since 2003. In response, staff conducted the Pressurized Gas Duste r Survey Update to collect updated data (ARB, 2008c). The GHG emissions from the Pressurized Gas Dusters for 2003 and 2007 were estimated using reported informa tion from the 2003 Consumer Products Survey and from the Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update gathered during February 2008 for 2007 sales. Information from bot h surveys is shown in Table IV-4.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 44 Table IV-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at E ffective 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 Cleaner a Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 Dusting Aid a Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00

Fabric Protectant a Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product a All 0.05 grams per use** 0.52 0.21

Floor Maintenance Product a All 1 0.11 0.07

Floor Polish or Wax –

Wood Floor Wax a All 70 0.06 0.01

Glass Cleaner b Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03

Motor Vehicle Wash a All 0.2 0.38 0.14

25 c 4.08 2.04 Multi-purpose Lubricant – excluding solid & semisolid c/e All 10 e 1.27

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00

Odor Remover/Eliminator a Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03

Penetrant c All 25 0.40 0.15 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20% or less fragrance) d All 75 + 10.89 0.41

Pressurized Gas Duster a All 1 0 0

Chemically Curing b Nonaerosol 3 1.91 0.22 Sealant or Caulking Compound Non-Chemically

Curing a Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 Spot Remover a Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00

Tire or Wheel Cleaner a Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06

Windshield Water Repellent a 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 reduct ions 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: 12/31/2015Technical 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 (CO 2 e lbs/day) 2008 Adjusted

GHG Emissions (CO 2 e 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 avera ge GHG content of over 99 percent by weight. As shown in Table IV-4, 39 d uster products were reported for 2003 with adjusted sales of 3,657 pounds per day fo r 2008, and estimated GHG

emissions of about 0.37 MMT CO 2 e per year in California. Additionally, as shown i n the table, 90 duster products were reported for 2007 wi th adjusted sales of 7,292 pounds per day for 2008, and estimated GHG emissions of ab out 0.36 MMT CO 2 e 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-134 a 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 proporti onate to the category sales, which have nearly doubled. (For more details on the Pres surized Gas Duster proposal see Chapter VI).

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standar ds . 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 C onsideration

. October 17, 2007. (ARB, 2007b)

5. Air Resources Board. ARB Compendium of Emission Factors and Methods to Support Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions . October, 2007. (ARB, 2007c)Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 46 6. Air Resources Board. State Strategy for Californ ia’s 2007 Implementation Plan

. Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the Air Resourc es Board on September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d)

7. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. July 24, 2007. (ARB, 2007f)

8. Air Resources Board. The California Almanac of E missions 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 A mbient Air Quality Standard for

Ozone . October, 2005. (ARB, 2005)

12. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commerci al 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 Amendment s to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfat es . May 3, 2002. (ARB, 2002)

15. Air Resources Board. Effect of Ozone on Vegetat ion 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 Diffe ring Air Pollution Levels . 2001. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care M edicine. 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. Techno logy of Pressurized Gas Duster Products - Meeting with ARB Staff . Andrew Steinman, Executive Vice President, Falcon Safety Products, Inc. March 5, 20 08. (CSPA, 2008)Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 47 19. Delfino RJ, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Street DH, M cLaren 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 Admissi on for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases . 2006. Journal of American Medical Association. Volume 925. Number 10: 1127-1134. (Domi nici et al ., 2006)

21. Dominici F, McDermott A, Daniels M, Zeger SL, S amet JM. Revised Analyses of the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollutio n Study: Mortality Among

Residents of 90 Cities . 2005. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Hea lth. A. 68:1071-92. (Dominici et al ., 2005)

22. Dominici F, McDermott A, Daniels M, Zeger SL, S amet JM. Revised Analyses of the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollutio n 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 Traf fic and Nitrogen Dioxide

. 2005. Epidemiology. Volume 16. Number 6: 737-743. ( Gauderman et al ., 2005)

24. Gauderman, W.J., Vora, H., McConnell, R., Berha ne, 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 o f Age . 2004. New England

Journal of Medicine. Volume 351. Number 11: 1057-10 67. (Gauderman et al

., 2004)

25. Gauderman, W.J., Gilliland, G.F., Vora, H., Avo l, 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 Funct ion Growth in Southern

California Children . 2000. American Journal Respiratory and Critical C are Medicine. Volume 162. pp.1383-1390. (Gauderman et al ., 2000)

27. Gent JF, Triche EW, Holford TR, Belanger K, Bra cken MB, Beckett WS,

Leaderer BP. Association of Low-level Ozone and Fin e Particles with Respiratory Symptoms in Children with Asthma . 2003. Journal of American

Medical Association. Volume 290. Number 14: 1859-18 67. (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., McCo nnell, R., Islam, K.T., and Peters, J.M. The Effects of Ambient Air Pollution o n School Absenteeism Due to Respiratory Illnesses . 2001. Epidemiology. Volume 12. Number 1: 12-43. (Gilliland et al

., 2001)

29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For ster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywo od, 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 Radiativ e Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contributi on of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change

. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marqu is, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge Univers ity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007)

30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clim ate 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. Harr is, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambr idge, United Kingdom. (IPCC, 1996)

31. Krewski D, Burnett R, Goldberg MS, Koover K, Si emiatycki 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. R eduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality . 2006. American Journal of Respiratory and Critica l Care Medicine. Volume 173: 667-672. (Laden et al ., 2006)

33. Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J. Asso ciation of Fine Particulate Matter from Different Sources with Daily Mortality in Six U.S. Cities . 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 108. Numb er 10: 941-947. (Laden et al ., 2000)

34. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. L ondon, 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 Pete rs, 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. Numb er 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: 1 83-198. (Moolgavkar, 2003)

38. Ostro BD, Lipsett MJ, Mann JK, Krupnick A, Harr ington W. Air Pollution and Respiratory Morbidity among Adults in Southern Cali fornia . 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, Fland ers WD, Todd K, Mulholland JA, Ryan PB, Frumkin H. Ambient Air Pollution and Respi ratory 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 3 rd , Burnett RT, Thurston GE, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krews ki D, and Godleski, JJ. Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-Ter m 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 3 rd , Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-te rm Exposure to Fine

Particulate Air Pollution . 2002. Journal of American Medical Association. Vo lume 287. Number 9: 1132-41. (Pope et al ., 2002)

44. Seinfeld, John H., and Pandis, Spyros N. Atmosp heric 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 Nonelderl y 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, Dominic i F, Schwab M, Ange BA, Samet J, Ondov J, Harrison D, Geyh A. A Case-crosso ver Study of Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Onset of Conge stive Heart Failure Symptom Exacerbation Leading to Hospitalization . 2006. American Journal of Epidemiology. Volume 164. Number 5: 421-433. (Symon s et al ., 2006)

47. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricu ltural Outlook: Statistical Indicators, Table 34.-Cash Receipts from Farm Marke ting, by State . July, 2006, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/Agoutlook/AOTa bles/ . (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. Numbe r 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 S tudies 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 REG ULATION

In this Chapter, we provide a plain English descri ption of the proposed amendments to the California Regulation for Reducin g 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, C onsumer Products , sections 94507-94517 (Consumer Products Regulation).

Where applicable, key terms or concepts involved i n each proposed amendment are described. The discussion in this Chapter is i ntended to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 11343.2, which requires tha t 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 c onsumer products. In this rulemaking, however, we are proposing to add requir ements related to climate change. To clarify that the regulation now specifies requir ements to reduce VOCs and greenhouse gases (GHG), we are proposing to change the title of the regulation to “Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Pr oducts.” Additionally, amendments are being proposed to six sections in th e Consumer Products Regulation: section 94508 “Definitions,” section 94509 “Standar ds for Consumer Products,” section 94510 “Exemptions,” section 94512 “Administ rative 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 am endments and the rationale for them. The proposal includes the addition and m odification of numerous definitions, a change in the definition of VOC to exclude a hydr ofluoroether, 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 w arming potential (GWP) in Pressurized Gas Duster products. A more detailed d iscussion of the existing regulatory requirements are referred to at the end of this Cha pter (ARB, 2006a; ARB 2004b; ARB, 1999; ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1991a; ARB, 1990c).

A. DEFINITIONS (SECTION 94508)

Section 94508, “Definitions,” provides all the ter ms used in the Consumer Products Regulation which are not self-explanatory. The proposed amendments to the Regulation include new or revised definitions. The se definitions are necessary to define categories proposed for VOC limits or GWP limits, o r 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 d efinitional changes, section 94508(a) would also be reorganized to refle ct 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 Rep ellant

Motor Vehicle Wash

Several of these definitions warrant a further des cription.

Global Warming Potential and Global Warming Potenti al Value

Of particular note, we are proposing new definition s for GWP and GWP Value. These definitions are necessary to implement our pr oposal to reduce the use of compounds with high GWPs used in Pressurized Gas Du sters. We are proposing to use the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Pan el on Climate Change (IPCC). GWP provides a measure of a compound’s impact on gl obal 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 s pecifies that, if the SAR does not contain a GWP value for a specific chemical or comp ound, 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 chemica l or compound in the SAR or the FAR, then the GWP value is assumed to be equal to t he 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 wher e 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 ar e 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 establi shments that manufacture or constructTechnical Support Document Chapter V - 53

goods or commodities, or are products sold to holde rs 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 w here household consumers may purchase them.

Table V-2, contains the list of existing definitio ns that are proposed to be modified. These changes are necessary to improve c larity, improve enforceability, or to describe the types of products that are excluded fr om 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 Lubrica nt 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 def inition of VOC to exclude hydrofluoroether (HFE) 7200. HFE 7200 is a solvent used in precision cleaning. In a report titled “Environmental Impact Assessment of S elected Halogenated Chemicals,” ARB staff determined that use of HFE 7200 has negli gible 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 belie ves the exemption is appropriate.

Pressurized Gas Duster Definition

Currently, the definition for Pressurized Gas Dust er 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 conc ern. These products are formulated with a non-flammable propellant with a high GWP. A t present time, no technology exists that would maintain this non-flammable aspec t if these products were mandated to comply with our proposed GWP limit for this cate gory. Therefore, staff is proposing a

modification to the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster to exclude products used onTechnical Support Document Chapter V - 54

energized equipment as long as the Principal Displa y Panel specifies “Energized Equipment use only.” As proposed, products so-labe led 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 exi sting Consumer Products Regulation by specifying VOC limits for the product categories shown in Table V-3. Some of the categories are previously unregulated a nd others are currently regulated. For the currently regulated categories we are propo sing 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). Severa l of the proposed VOC limits warrant additional explanation.

Proposal for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Produ ct

Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product is a prev iously 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. O ur rationale for this proposal is

described in section 2 below.

Proposal for Personal Fragrance Products

Staff is proposing that Personal Fragrance Product s with 20 percent or less fragrance would be required to meet the existing Ja nuary 1, 1999, limit of 75 percent by weight VOC. This would remove the so-called “Grand father” clauses currently contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). The rea der 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 proposin g to reinstate the long-standing exemption for solid and paste forms of Furniture Ma intenance Products. This exemption was inadvertently omitted during the 2006 rulemaking. The exemption clarifies that solid and paste forms of this type o f 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 Da tes

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 “Grandf ather” clausesTechnical Support Document Chapter V - 56

2. Other Proposed Amendments to section 94509

The following proposals pertain to other subsectio ns of section 94509.

Proposed Requirement for Dilutable Products - Secti on 94509(b)(4)

Currently, section 94509(b) in the Consumer Produc ts 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 dilu ted. Staff has become aware of products packaged in pump spray containers that app ear to be marketed as “ready-touse” products, but are designed to be diluted by th e user prior to use. Staff believes this approach to packaging may be diminishing anticipate d VOC reductions, and is a potential circumvention of the intent of the regula tion. Therefore, staff is proposing a modification to section 94509(b)(4), clarifying tha t the VOC limit for products sold in pump spray containers is applied prior to any minim um suggested dilution.

Date Coding Requirements – Section 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p)

Subsections 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p) speci fy 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 - S ection 94509(q)

To mitigate a potential adverse environmental impa ct, 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 (CE QA), ARB is required to identify and mitigate any possible adverse environm ental impacts of regulatory actions. We believe that it is unlikely, but possi ble, that manufacturers may, in response to new VOC limits, choose to reformulate w ith chlorinated solvents that are Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). Therefore, because t here are many products that comply with the proposed limits, none of which cont ain 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 requirement s for the products listed above. It is being proposed that any of these products manufa ctured before December 31, 2010, can be sold, supplied, or offere d 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 94 509(q)(3). This section requires that the seller must notify the purchaser of the se ll-through period described in 94509(q)(2) only if the product is being sold or su pplied to a distributor or retailer, and the product is being sold or supplied on or after J une 30, 2013.

New subsection 94509(q)(4) is being proposed to es tablish that the requirements of 94509(q)(1) and 94509(q)(3) do not apply to products that contain methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloro ethylene present as an impurity, or in amounts equal or less than 0.01 percent by weigh t.

In evaluating the use of these TACs, staff has bec ome aware that certain Penetrants are designed for use on energized equipm ent. In these situations, the products must be non-flammable as a safety precauti on. 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 lan guage 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 9450 9(r)

The reduction of GHGs from consumer products has b een designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure in accordance with Th e California Global Warming

Solutions Act of 2006. The emission reduction esti mated for Consumer Products is 0.25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivale nts (MMT CO 2 e) 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 chemica l compound that has a Global Warming Potential of 150 or greater.

In accordance with CEQA, to ensure that the VOC con tent of these products do

not increase as a result of reformulation to meet G WP limits, a one percent by weight VOC limit is also being proposed for Pressurized Ga s Dusters. As a further mitigation measure, we are also proposing that Pressurized Gas Dusters could not contain the VOC exempt compounds methylene chloride or perchlor oethylene. While reformulating with these TACs is unlikely, we belie ve prohibiting their use is prudent to ensure that there is no increase in exposure to the se TACs.

Staff is also proposing in section 94509(r)(2) tha t 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 produc t 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 th at 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 no tice 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 th at the fragrance exemption does not apply to Pressurized Gas Dusters. This pr oposal ensures that even with fragrance, the total VOCs in a Pressurized Gas Dust er 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 resu lt of the proposed regulation.

Finally, Section 94509(r)(5) is being proposed to s pecify that any chemical compounds that are present as impurities in an amou nt, 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 i n Pressurized Gas Dusters may contain very small quantities of contaminants. This provision allows Pressurized Gas Dusters that contain those contaminants, presen t at very low levels, to comply with the regulatory provisions.

Staff has also become aware that certain Pressuriz ed Gas Dusters are designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the products must be non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide t his non-flammable aspect, propellants with high GWPs are used. At present ti me, staff is not aware of alternative propellants that can perform this function. Theref ore, staff is proposing that Pressurized Gas Dusters that specify on the Princip al Display Panel “Energized Equipment use only.” be exempt from both the VOC an d GWP limits.

Requirements for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product – Section 94509(s)

Staff is proposing a new subsection 94509(s) to des cribe the VOC content limit for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product. Thes e products are typically made by applying liquid materials to a non-woven sheet subs trate. 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 th e size of each dryer sheet does not increase. In developing the limit for these produc ts, staff determined that establishing a percent by weight limit could result in the use o f larger sheets to comply. This would diminish emission reductions and potentially lead t o increasing the solid waste stream. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA requirements to mitigate potential environmental impacts, the grams per sheet limit is proposed. Th e 0.05 grams per use VOC limit is designed to provide a VOC reduction equivalent to t hat which would be achieved by setting a 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit (includin g 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 p roducts. 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 per cent or less fragrance are required to meet an 80 percent by weight or a 75 pe rcent 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 eit her limit. Products that were introduced between 1995 and 1999 were required to m eet 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 containe d in subsections 94509(h) and (l). Staff is proposing to remove these “Grandfather” cl auses. 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 o n 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 Requiremen ts – Section 94512(b)(1)

Currently, section 94512(b)(1) specifies that a pro duct must clearly display the date or code indicating the date of manufacture. W e 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 – S ection 94512(d)

Staff is proposing that non-aerosol Chemically Cur ing and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound products comply with additional labeling requirements specified in section 94512(d). Becaus e different VOC limits are proposed, staff believes this is necessary to easily distingu ish between Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound and Non-Chemically Curing Seal ant or Caulking Compound. Section 94512(d) requires products to display the a pplicable 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 limi t 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 te chnology advances as expected,

staff believes that manufacturers should demonstrat e 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 detail ed written updates on their research and development efforts undertaken to achi eve compliance with the VOC limits. The reports would include sales and formul ation 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 3 1, 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 devel op 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 31 0 be used as the analytical

method to determine GWP content. This method alrea dy contains the necessary protocols to analyze for both HFC-152a and HFC-134a content.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assess ment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals – Staff Report . March, 2008. (ARB, 2008b)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reas ons 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 Reas ons for Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspi rants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Freshene rs and Toilet/Urinal Care

Products . May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Mid-te rm Measures II

. September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reaso ns for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m 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 Con sumer Products – Phase II – Technical Support Document . October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)

7. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Red uce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technic al 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 fo r the proposed limits for each category proposed for regulation. The following in formation 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 comp ound (VOC) and/or global warming potential (GWP) limit, our rationale for th e 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 i ncludes descriptions of the product categories for which VOC limits are propose d. The product categories in Section A are in alphabetical order. Section B des cribes 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 cl eaning and tightening pores. For this rulemaking, only those Astringents/Toners not regul ated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are included. These products may also exfoliate, refresh, remove excess dirt, oil, impurities, and/or prepare the sk in for moisturizing. While most Astringents/Toners are liquid products, there are a lso 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/Medic ated Toner, Personal Fragrance Product, cold cream, lotion or Antiperspirant. Med icated Astringent/Medicated Toner means any product regulated as a drug by the FDA wh ich is applied to the skin for the purpose of cleaning or tightening pores. In accord ance with FDA rules, Medicated Astringents/Medicated Toners must be labeled such t hat the active ingredients in the product are identified.

Astringent/Toner is a previously unregulated categ ory. 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

As indicated, 203 different branded Astringents/To ners were sold in California in 2003 by 73 companies. Astringent/Toner VOC emissio ns, 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 profess ionals 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 d ispensed 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 produc ts recommend the use of a moisturizer once the Astringent/Toner has dried (Co te, 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 offe r smaller and larger sizes.

Product Formulation :

The VOC content of products in this category range s 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 a nd readily evaporate. These products typically contain water, low vapor pressure volatil e organic compounds (LVP-VOC), fragrance and either ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, an d/or witch hazel.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

As shown in Table VI-2 below, the proposed VOC lim it 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 emi ssion reduction of 220 pounds per day, or about 0.11 tons per day.

Table VI-2 also shows that 70 percent of the marke t 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

As shown in Table VI-2, at the time of the 2003 Su rvey, over two-thirds of the market complied with the proposed VOC limit of 35 p ercent 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 m aintain efficacy among the variety of Astringent/Toner products currently avai lable. 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 neede d for the Astringent/Toner to effectively dissolve sebum on oily skin (Idelle, 2008).

Staff has determined that reformulation to the pro posed limit is technically feasible. The majority of products in this categor y are already low VOC, and there are many effective non-VOC alternatives available for s ubstitution. Numerous products with VOC content below 35 percent are already available and well-accepted by consumers. Reformulation options that can be used by manufactu rers to meet the proposed limit include reducing the level of alcohol and increasin g 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 level s of VOCs is necessary to maintain efficacy, and provide consumers with all o ptions for skin treatment.

Response : All of the products within this category make simi lar claims on the label, including those containing 35 percent or les s VOC.

b. Issue : Manufacturers will change their non-medicated pro ducts to medicated allowing the use of the full range of VOCs.

Response : Staff disagrees. The cost to change a non-medica ted 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 sali cylic acid, labeling modifications, and extensive record keeping.

c. Issue : Any VOC limit on these products will negatively i mpact public health.

Response : As required in the California Health and Safety C ode, we have consulted with staff at California Department of Pu blic 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 wa ter 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 addr ess oily skin.

e. Issue : Setting a low VOC limit will eliminate some needed products.

Response : Staff disagrees. We believe all necessary functi ons of an Astringent/Toner can be met at a VOC level of 35 pe rcent or less. In addition, 70 percent of the market already meets this limit w hich shows both technological and commercial feasibility with the proposed limit.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l 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 St aff . March 20, 2008. (Idelle, 2008)

2. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner

Product Category Description :

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner products are used for ro utine cleaning of soils on carpet and/or upholstery in homes, businesses, inst itutions, and vehicles. Typical fabrics include wool; cotton; nylon; and other carp et, rug, furniture, and automotive interior synthetic fibers. The category includes c leaning products with or without fabric protectant claims. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner does not include Spot Removers, used for removing localized spots and stains; vinyl or l eather cleaners; or products for exclusive use at industrial facilities engaged in f urniture or carpet manufacture (i.e. industrial cleaners used only in production o f 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-t o-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 m inimum dilution concentration). However, the proposal to clarify the category defin ition would apply to all product forms.

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners were regulated under Mi dterm Measures I of the Consumer Products Regulation approved on July 24, 1 997, and a description of the products is also included in the staff report for t hat rulemaking (ARB, 1997b). At that time, the Board adopted a 7 percent VOC limit for a erosol products, a 0.1 percent VOC limit for dilutable non-aerosol products, and a 3 p ercent VOC limit for RTU non-aerosol products. The adopted limits became effective Janu ary 1, 2001.

As discussed, the Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner categor y 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 emission s 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 catego ry 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

As shown in Table VI-3, estimated VOC emissions ar e about 1,234 pounds per day, or about 0.61 tons per day, in California. Th e sales-weighted average VOC content of the aerosol and non-aerosol products rep orted in the 2003 Survey was approximately 7 and 3 percent by weight, respective ly.

Product Use and Marketing :

Aerosol products for carpets and rugs typically us e an invertible aerosol container for downward spray application. The dispensed liqu id or foam is left on the carpet or rug for several minutes to penetrate and loosen dir t, with or without agitation. To lift and remove the dirt, the area is either wiped with clot h (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 si milar manner.

The RTU non-aerosol products include not-to-be-dil uted liquids, solids, and gel/semisolids. The liquids may be dispensed by me chanical spray (trigger or hand-pump-pressurized tank) and used in a manner si milar to aerosols. The solids and gel/semisolids are granular or powder products appl ied to carpeting, brushed or agitated, and then vacuumed. Some products are use d for pre-cleaning sections of carpeting, such as traffic lanes, prior to main cle aning such as by hot-water extraction.

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners are used by household c onsumers, janitors, professional carpet/upholstery cleaners, and auto d etailers in homes, businesses, institutions, and vehicles. Aerosol products are t ypically 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 genera l merchandise stores, super markets, auto parts stores, hardware stores, janito rial and maintenance supply warehouses, and over the Internet.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 68 Product Formulation :

Aerosol products may contain 4 to 7 percent hydroc arbon 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 gen erally LVP-VOCs). When fabric protection is claimed, the product contains a polym er to be left behind on the fabric. Other propellants include carbon dioxide, dimethyl ether, and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). The very low-VOC products are generally surfactant-base d, 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 aer osol 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 solvent s. Surfactants are common; sodium lauryl sulfate is typical. Some products ar e shampoos, formulated to remove particles and inorganic contaminants, and may addre ss oily dirt to some extent as well. The few that reported solid (powder or granular) an d gel/semisolid products in this subcategory showed varied formulations.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limits for Carpet/Upholstery Clea ner 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 e missions adjusted to 2010, the proposed limits will result in an estimated emissio n 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, curre ntly comply with the proposed

VOC limits.

The proposed 5 percent VOC limit for aerosol produ cts 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 so lvent. Another option is use of non-VOC propellants, such as N 2 O, to enable up to 5 percent VOC cleaning solvent. A third option is to use up to 5 percent VOC hydrocar bon propellant, and rely on LVP-VOC surfactant cleaners, LVP-VOC solvent cleane rs 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

The proposed 1 percent VOC limit for RTU non-aeros ol 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 perc hloroethylene (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 reformulate d products, ARB staff is proposing that perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and meth ylene chloride be prohibited in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners. This prohibition is pr oposed 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 av ailable formulation technologies do not contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, o r methylene chloride, thus they are not needed to comply with the proposed standard. S ee Chapter VIII for a discussion of the health effects of perchloroethylene, trichloroe thylene, and methylene chloride.

Issues :

a. Issue : The sales-weighted average (SWA) for Carpet/Uphol stery 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-co mplying products, some with VOC content considerably above the 3 percent VOC limit in effect in 2003. However, the emission reduction mu st be corrected to avoid double-counting reductions associated with a prior rulemaking, and to not

overestimate the emission reduction from the curren t 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 uncorr ected SWA appearTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 70 inconsistently high, compared with the corrected VO C reduction. Also, there were substantial sales of low-VOC products complyin g with the proposed 1 percent VOC level, and hence well below the 3 per cent VOC limit in effect in 2003. This additionally makes the SWA appear incon sistently high compared with the relatively high complying market share wit h the 1 percent VOC proposed

limit.

b. Issue : Lowering of the VOC limit for aerosol Carpet/Upho lstery Cleaner to 5 percent by weight could impact the feasibility of foaming products to not leave soil-attracting residues. A lowering of the VOC li mit 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 wit h the proposed 5 percent VOC limit for aerosol products. Also, we do not ex pect 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 believ e there would be no problem with either soil-attracting residues or with emptyi ng the aerosol container.

c. Issue : Non-VOC propellants such as HFC-152a are not suit able for foaming aerosol products, because the non-VOC propellants l ack the solubility of conventional hydrocarbon propellants, needed for ad equate foam generation.

Response : As discussed above, the 2003 survey data show sev eral foaming products, using conventional hydrocarbon propellant s, 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 feasib ility of products to not leave soil-attracting residues.

Response : The 2003 survey data show that many RTU non-aeros ol products comprising 25 percent market share already comply w ith the proposed 1 percent VOC limit. Therefore, we believe there should be n o 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 b y the marketer, and if clearly mis-categorized, with adjustments by ARB staff. Some productTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 71 names and label claims may be inconsistent. If a p roduct is both a Spot Remover and a Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, we would c onsider the product a Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner if label directions recom mend broad-area (nonlocalized) use of the product.

f. Issue : Precleaner liquid and powder products are not Car pet/Upholstery Cleaner - non-aerosol RTU products.

Response : These products already fall into the definition o f Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner in section 94508(a)(26) of the C onsumer Products Regulation. As non-aerosol RTU products, they have been subject to the currently effective 3 percent VOC limit since Jan uary 1, 2001.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures I

. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)

3. Dusting Aid

Product Category Description:

Dusting Aid means a product designed to assist in r emoving dust and other soils from floors and other surfaces without leaving a wa x or silicone-based coating. Dusting

Aids do not include Pressurized Gas Duster Products , or Furniture Maintenance Products, which are regulated as separate categorie s.

The Board adopted standards limiting the VOC conte nt 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 f irst 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. I n addition, the Board adopted a 7 percent VOC limit for non-aerosol Dusting Aids, e ffective 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, 200 4a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales ar e 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Estimated VOC emissions from the entire category ar e 578 pounds per day, or about 0.29 tons per day. As shown in Table VI-5, a erosol Dusting Aids account for 79 percent of the total category emissions. Aeroso l 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 d ust and other soils from floors and other surfaces without leaving a wax or silicon e based coating. The product is applied to dust mops, dust cloths, or feather duste rs to increase the ability of the mop head or cloth to attract and hold dust particles, l int, pet dander, hair, and dirt. These products are used on furniture, molding, window bli nds, ceiling fans, window frames and sills, radiators, woodwork, floors and any other su rface 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 floo rs.

Dusting Aids contain oils or cationic quaternary am monium 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 t he 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 provid ed by Furniture Maintenance Products and Dusting Aids, the categories can be di stinguished. Dusting Aids are primarily used for dusting, including dusting of fu rniture and floors, without leaving a wax or silicone-based coating. Furniture Maintenance P roducts are used primarily to polish furniture, leaving a wax or silicone-based protecti ve coating. Although some FurnitureTechnical 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, VOC s, hydrocarbon propellants (in aerosols), and small amounts of other agents su ch as emulsifiers, dust attractants and fragrances (ARB, 2004a). The active ingredient s used to lift and absorb dust particles can be a light hydrocarbon oil, orange oi l, or a cationic quaternary ammonium compound.

The solvents used in Dusting Aids include water; hy drocarbons, such as odorless mineral spirits or petroleum distillates; LVP-VOCs such as glycol ethers; or volatile methyl siloxanes. Aerosol products typically conta in 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 limi t 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 red uction 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 V OC 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 m arket currently complies with the proposed 17 percent VOC limit for aerosol Dusti ng Aids. For non-aerosol Dusting Aids, 77 percent of the market complies with the pr oposed 3 percent VOC limit.

As described in the Product Use and Marketing section, there is some overlap in the functions provided by Furniture Maintenance Pro ducts and Dusting Aids. Because of the similarity in formulation and function, we e xpect that the technology used in

Furniture Maintenance Products can be transferred f or use in Dusting Aids. Reformulation options include the use of LVP-VOC hy drocarbons, LVP-VOC glycol ethers, and water.