## State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

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

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER

ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS

REGULATION

Considered at a Public Hearing on June 26, 2008

Agenda Item No. 08-6-52 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

I. INTRODUCTION 4

II. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 6

A. Section 94508. Definitions 6

Section 94508(a)(58) "Floor Maintenance Product " Section 94508(a)(107) "Not for Retail Sale" Section 94508(a)(115) "Personal Fragrance Product" Section 94508(a)(131) "Sealant or Caulking Compoun d"

B. Section 94509. Standards for Consumer Products 6 Section 94509(a)

C. Section 94512. Administrative Requirements 6 Section 94512(d)(1)

D. Miscellaneous 6

III. CORRECTIONS TO THE REFERENCES LISTED IN THE INITIAL

STATEMENT OF REASONS 7

IV. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES 11

A. 45-DAY COMMENTS 21

1. General Comments 21

2. Comments on Specific Categories 28

a. Astringent/Toner 28

b. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner 30

c. Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product 3 1

d. Floor Maintenance Product 353

e. Glass Cleaner 36

f. Motor Vehicle Wash 37

g. Multi-Purpose Lubricant 38

h. Odor Remover/Eliminator 40

i. Penetrant 42

j. Personal Fragrance Product 42

k. Pressurized Gas Duster 43

l. Sealant or Caulking Compound 46

m. Windshield Water Repellant 47

3. Other Comments 48

B. 15-DAY COMMENTS 52

1. General Comments 52

2. Comments on Sealant or Caulking Compound Products 534 I.

INTRODUCTION

On June 26, 2008, the Air Resources Board (the "Boa rd" or "ARB") conducted a public hearing to consider amendments to the Califo rnia Consumer Products Regulation, sections 94507-94517, title 17, Califor nia Code of Regulations (CCR). An Initial Statement of Reasons for Propose d Rulemaking (ISOR or staff report) was prepared and made available to the publ ic on May 9, 2008. The ISOR is incorporated by reference herein. This Fin al Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking (FSOR) updates the ISOR by identifying a nd explaining the modifications that were made to the original propos al. The FSOR also

summarizes the written and oral comments received d uring the rulemaking process, and contains the ARB's responses to those comments.

At the hearing, the Board approved Resolution 08-30 , which initiated steps toward final adoption of the proposed amendments. The approved amendments included modifications to the originally proposed l anguage. All of the modifications to the original proposal are describe d in Section II of this FSOR entitled "Modifications Made to the Original Propos al." In accordance with Government Code section 11346.8(c), Resolution 08-3 0 directed the Executive Officer to adopt the modified regulations after mak ing the modified regulatory language available for public comment, and to make such additional modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received.

A "Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text" together with a copy of the full text of the regulation modifications, with the modi fications clearly indicated, were mailed on August 12, 2008, to each of the individua ls described in subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4) of section 44, title 1, CCR. By this action the modified Consumer Products Regulation was made available to the public for a 15-day comment period from August 12, 2008 to August 27, 2 008, pursuant to

Government Code section 11346.8. The Executive Off icer then determined that no additional changes should be made to the regulat ions, and subsequently issued an Executive Order, by which the modified Co nsumer Products Regulation was adopted.

As defined in Government Code section 11345.5(a)(6) , the Board has determined that this regulatory action will not cre ate costs or savings to any State agency, nor affect federal funding to the State. T he Board has also determined that this regulatory action will not create costs o r impose a mandate upon any local agency or school district, whether or not it is reimbursable by the State pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with section 17500), Division 4, title 2 of the Government Code; or affect other non-discretionary savings to state or local agencies. In preparing the regulatory proposal, th e ARB staff considered the5

potential economic impacts on California business e nterprises and individuals. A detailed discussion of these impacts is included in the ISOR. The adopted regulations are considered "major regulations" with in the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 57005 (enacted by Senate Bill 1 082: Stats.1993, ch. 418), because the regulations will have an economic impac t on the State's business enterprises in an amount of approximately $26 milli on dollars per year. During the 45-day and 15-day comment periods, no alternati ves or combination of

alternatives were submitted to the ARB which would be equally effective as the proposed regulations (i.e., no alternatives, or com bination or alternatives, were submitted which would achieve at least the equivale nt level of environmental protection within the same time frame as the propos ed regulations.)

The Board has determined that no reasonable alterna tive considered by the agency or that has otherwise been identified and br ought to the attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulatory action was proposed, or which would be a s effective and less burdensome to affected private persons or business, than the action taken by the

ARB.6 II.

MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL

Various modifications to the original proposal were made in order to address comments received during the 45-day public comment period, and to clarify the regulatory language. These modifications are descr ibed below.

A. Section 94508. Definitions :

Section 94508(a)(58) The definition of "Floor Maintenance Product" w as modified to clarify the types of products subject t o the VOC standard.

Section 94508(a)(107) The definition of "Not for Retail Sale" was

removed.

Section 94508(a)(115) The definition of "Personal Fragrance Product" was modified to clarify the types of products subje ct to the VOC standard.

Section 94508(a)(131) The definition of "Sealant or Caulking Compound" was modified to clarify the types of prod ucts subject to the

VOC standard.

B. Section 94509. Standards for Consumer Products :

Section 94509(a) A modification was made to the “Table of Standards ” to specify that the “Motor Vehicle Wash” limit is a pplicable only to “nonaerosol” product forms.

C. Section 94512. Administrative Requirements :

Section 94512(d)(1) A modification was made to the additional labeli ng requirements to specify the effective dates for the “Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol)” category.

D. Miscellaneous : Several minor modifications, such as renumberi ng subsections and correcting dates, were also made th roughout the regulatory language.7 III.

CORRECTIONS TO THE REFERENCES LISTED IN THE INITIAL STATEMENT

OF REASONS

Staff has identified a number of typographical erro rs and other minor problems in

some of the references that were listed in the ISOR . For clarity, following is an identification of these errors and the necessary co rrections.

1. The following two references cited in the refere nce list on pages 23 and 24 in the Executive Summary were corrected as follows:

In the reference cited for (CA DOF, 2007), “444,00 0” is hereby changed to read: “470,000.” This is a typographical error. Note the reference is correctly cited in the reference list on page 177. The corre ct reference should be as

follows:

California Department of Finance. Report: State Add s 470,000 in 2006: 2007 Population Nears 37.7 Million . May 1, 2007.

The reference for (Dupont & Falcon, 2004) was corr ected for grammatical and typographical errors. To improve clarity and consi stency, the author’s company affiliations were added. The correct refer ence should be as follows:

DuPont Company in association with Falcon Safety Pr oducts. Fluorochemicals Laboratory DuPont Company Technical Report, Subject: Cleaning Tests for Aerosol Dusting Aids (Dusters) . December 1, 2004. Schweitzer, M.,Ludert, J., Hitches, B., Creazzo, J. A. (DuPont Company). Bilsback, B., McLeer, D. (Falcon Safety Products).

2. The reference (CA DOF, 2007) cited in the refere nce list on page 46 was corrected for typographical errors, (see correction 1).

3. The following three references cited in the refe rence list on page 47 were

corrected as follows:

The reference for (Dominici et al ., 2006) erroneously referenced the publication as being published in Volume 925. Volu me “925” is hereby changed to Volume “295.” This is a typographical e rror. The correct

reference should be as follows:

Dominici, F., Peng, R.D., Bell, M.L., Pham, L., McD ermott, A., Zeger, S.L., Samet, J.M. Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hosp ital Admission for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases . 2006. Journal of American Medical

Association. Volume 295. Number 10: 1127-1134.8

The reference for (Gauderman et al ., 2005) was corrected for spelling errors.

The correct reference should be as follows:

Gauderman, W.J., Avol, E., Lurmann, F., Kuenzli, N. , Gilliland, F., Peters, J., and McConnell, R. Childhood Asthma and Exposure to Traffic and Nitrogen

Dioxide . 2005. Epidemiology. Volume 16. Number 6: 737-743.

The names of three contributing authors were errone ously omitted from the reference for (Gauderman et al ., 2004). The omitted authors and were added

to the citation and the reference was corrected for spelling errors. The correct

reference should be as follows:

Gauderman, W.J., Vora, H., McConnell, R., Berhane, K., Gilliland, F., Thomas, D., Lurmann, F., Avol, E., Bates, D., Margo lis, H., Rappaport, E., Kuenzli, N., Jerrett, M., and Peters, J. The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age . 2004. New England Journal of

Medicine. Volume 351. Number 11: 1057-1067.

4. The following two references cited in the refere nce list on page 48 were

corrected as follows:

The reference for (Gilliland et al. , 2001) erroneously cites pages 12-43 as being relied upon for supporting documentation for this rulemaking. The correct citation is to pages 43-54. This is a typo graphical error. The correct

reference should be as follows:

Gilliland, F.D., Berhand, K., Rappaport, E.B., Tho mas, 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 Polluti on on School Absenteeism Due to Respiratory Illnesses . 2001. Epidemiology. Volume 12. Number 1: 43-

54.

The reference cited for (Krewski et al. , 2000) was corrected for typographical errors in spelling and punctuation. The correct re ference should be as

follows:

Krewski, D., Burnett, R., Goldberg, M.S., Hoover, K ., Siemiatycki, J., Jerrett,

M. et al . Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and th e American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mort ality . 2000. Research Report of the Health Effects Institute.

5. The following two references cited in the refere nce list on page 49 were

corrected as follows:

The reference for (Miller et al ., 2007) erroneously cites the New England Journal of American Medicine as the publication in which the reference was9

published. This is a typographical error. The cor rect publication is New England Journal of Medicine. The correct reference should be as follows:

Miller, K.A., Siscovick, D.S., Sheppard, L., Shephe rd, K., Sullivan, J.H., Anderson G.L., and Kaufman, J.D. Long-term Exposure to Air Pollution and

Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Women . 2007. New England Journal of

Medicine. Volume 356. Number 5: 447-458.

The reference for (Pope et al ., 2004) was corrected for typographical spelling

errors. The correct reference should be as follows :

Pope, C.A. 3rd, Burnett, R.T., Thurston, G.D., Thun , M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., and Godleski, J.J. Cardiovascular Mort ality and Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution: Epidemiologi cal Evidence of General Pathophysiological Pathways of Disease . 2004. Circulation. Volume 109: 71-

77.

6. In the reference list on page 65, the reference for (Cote, 2006) erroneously cites April 8, 2008, as the date the referenced web site was printed. This is a typographical error. The correct date is May 8, 20 08. The correct reference

should be as follows:

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 . May 8, 2008.

7. The reference for (Dupont & Falcon, 2004) cited in the reference list on page 147 was corrected for typographical and grammatical errors, (see correction 1).

8. The references contained in Chapter VII were cor rected as follows:

The ISOR erroneously referenced ( Id , Appendix D1) on page 163. The correct citation was changed to read: (ARB, 1991a)

.

The reference for (ARB, 2004a) cited on page 153 w as omitted from the reference list on page 177. The omitted citation w as added:

Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey

. November, 2004.

The reference for (ARB, 1989c) was erroneously cite d in the reference list on page 178. The reference was not relied upon as sup porting documentation for Chapter VII and the citation does not appear in the text. The erroneous

citation was removed:10

Air Resources Board. Technical Review Group's Propo sed Architectural Coatings Suggested Control Measure - Staff Report . April 20, 1989.

9. The following two references cited in the refere nce list on page 204 were

corrected as follows:

The reference for (Bowman et al ., 1994) erroneously referenced the publication as being published in 1995. The correc t date is 1994. The correct

reference should be as follows:

Bowman, F. M., Pilinis, C. and Seinfeld, J. H. Ozon e and Aerosol Productivity of Reactive Organics . 1994. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 29: 579 589

.

The reference for (Dupont & Falcon, 2004) was corr ected for typographical and grammatical errors, (see correction 1).11 IV.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES

The Board received numerous written and oral commen ts during the 45-day and 15-day comment periods for this regulatory action. A list of commenters is set

forth below with the date and form of all comments that were timely filed. Following the list is a summary of each objection o r recommendation made regarding the proposal with an explanation of how t he proposed action has been changed to accommodate the objection or recommendat ion, or the reasons for making no change.

Comments Received During the 45-day Public Comment Period

Abbreviation Commenter

ACC Sharon H. Kneiss
Vice President, Products Divisions American Chemistry Council Written testimony: June 24, 2008

ALA Bonnie Holmes-Gen American Lung Association of California (ALA) Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

ASTM Jessica A. Hychalk Manager, Global Cooperation

ASTM International Written testimony: June 3, 2008

Submitted by: Anne Meininger National Institute of Standards and Technology

Blaster-1 Paul Gardner General Manager/Plant Operations Blaster Corporation Written testimony: June 23, 2008

Blaster-2 Paul Gardner Blaster Corporation Oral testimony: June 26, 200812

CCA, et al. Luis R. Cabrales, Senior Campaign and Outreach Associate

Coalition for Clean Air Charlotte Brody, RN, Executive Director

Commonweal Elina Green, MPH, Program Coordinator Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma Jesse Marquez, Executive Director

Coalition for a Safe Environment Neil Gendel, Director Healthy Children Organizing Project
Joel Ervice, Interim Director Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP) Initiative Bill Magavern, Director

Sierra Club California Dori Gilels, Executive Director

Women’s Voices for the Earth Adrian Martinez, Project Attorney

Natural Resources Defense Council

Rachel L. Gibson, Environmental Health Advocate & S taff Attorney

Environment California Andrea Ventura, Program Manager

Clean Water Action Wafaa Aborashad, Executive Director Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities – SL Lenny Siegel, Executive Director Center for Public Environmental Oversight Angel De Fazio, BSAT, President National Toxic Encephalopathy Foundation M. Suzanne Murphy, Executive Director Worksafe, Inc Elise Miller, Executive Director

Institute for Children’s Environmental Health Arturo Carmona, Executive Director Consejo de Federaciones Mexicanas en Norteamerica (COFEM) Anne Katten, Pesticide and Work Safety Specialis t California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Teresa Marquez, Land Use Committee Chair Boyle Heights Resident Homeowners Association James Roybal, President

Residents of Pico Rivera for Environmental Just ice Eden Flynn, Coordinator Southern California Coalition for Occupational Safe ty & Health (SoCalCOSH)13

Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angele s Deborah Moore, Executive Director

Green Schools Initiative
James Provenzano, President

Clean Air Now René L. Guerrero, Legislative Advocate Planning and Conservation League

David Lighthall, Ph.D., Senior Scientist for Enviro nmental

Health Central Valley Health Policy Institute Bradley Angel, Executive Director

Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justic e Allyson Holman, Chair Merced/Mariposa County Asthma Coalition Jose Luis Olmedo, Executive Director

Comite Civico Del Valle Conner Everts, Executive Director

Southern California Watershed Alliance Miguel A. Luna

Urban Semillas Julia Liou, Planning and Development Manager

Asian Health Services Manuel Criollo, Lead Organizer Labor/Community Strategy Center Written testimony: June 25, 2008

CCA-1 Luis Cabrales

Coalition for Clean Air Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

CCA-2 Tim Carmichael

Coalition for Clean Air Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

CEH Rufus Howell Deputy Director

Center for Environmental Health Written testimony: June 25, 2008

Clorox Victoria Jones

Director of Government Affairs The Clorox Company Written testimony: June 17, 200814

CRC Adam Selisker

CRC Industries Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

CSPA-1 D. Douglas Fratz Vice President, Scientific & Technical Affairs Joseph T. Yost Director, Strategic Issues Advocacy Consumer Specialty Products Association Written testimony: June 23, 2008

CSPA-2 D. Douglas Fratz Consumer Specialty Products Association Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

CSPA-3 Joseph T. Yost Consumer Specialty Products Association Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

DARCO-1 Darlene Coe

DARCO Sales Written testimony: June 25, 2008

Falcon Philip Lapin

President/CEO Falcon Safety Products Written testimony: June 25, 2008

Fleet Valerie Ramsey, RAC Director, Regulatory Affairs C.B. Fleet Company, Inc

Fleet Laboratories Written testimony: June 23, 2008

FSC Jerry Ulrich

President

Four Star Chemical Written testimony: June 23, 2008

Ghadially-1 Ruby Ghadially, M.D. Written testimony: June 13, 2008

Ghadially-2 Ruby Ghadially, M.D. Written testimony: June 23, 200815

Henkel Ray Cull Director, R & D and Technical Services

Henkel Written testimony: June 24, 2008

JRW Emily Winchester

JRW Ent. Inc. Written testimony: June 25, 2008

Lyondell Dan Pourreau

Technical Advisor LyondellBassell Industries Written testimony: June 25, 2008

Meguiar’s Gary Silvers Meguiar’s Written testimony: June 23, 2008

NAA-1 Sean Fitzgerald

President

National Aerosol Association Written testimony: June 24, 2008

NAA-2 Doug Raymond

National Aerosol Association Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

PCPC Jim Mattesich Greenberg-Taurig (representing the Personal Care Products Council ) Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

Plaze John Davis

Vice President of Technical Services Plaze, Inc./Claire Sprayway Written testimony: June 23, 2008

Radiator Larry Beaver Vice President, Technology Radiator Specialty Company Written testimony: June 23, 2008

Ray Linda Ray Written testimony: June 26, 200816

SCAQMD-1 Dr. William A. Burke

Chairman of the Board South Coast Air Quality Management District Written testimony: June 20, 2008

SCAQMD-2 Barry Wallerstein South Coast Air Quality Management District Oral and written testimony: June 26, 2008

SDA-1 Kathleen Stanton Associate Director, Scientific Affairs Soap and Detergent Association Written testimony: June 20, 2008

SDA-2 Bob Hamilton

(representing Access Business Group and the Soap an d Detergent Association) Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

SEIU-1 Solange Echeverria Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Loc al 1877

Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

SEIU-2 Laura Rico Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Loc al 1877

Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

SherWill Gregory L. Johnson Sherwin-Williams Company Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

Sierra Bill Magavern

Sierra Club Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

Stoner -1 Harry Zechman Chief Operating Officer

Stoner Solutions Written testimony: June 23, 2008

Stoner -2 Harry Zechman Chief Operating Officer

Stoner Solutions Oral testimony: June 26, 200817

Techspray Steve Cook Director of Product Technology Techspray Written testimony: June 23, 2008

WD-40 Mike Freeman

WD-40 Oral testimony: June 26, 2008

YG Mark Sorensen Yorkshire Guttering Written testimony: July 1, 2008

During the 45-day comment period, a form letter was received from the following

list of individuals. The letters all contained the same comments. These commenters are collectively referred to as CCAltr i n Section A of this document.

CCAltr Adriana Franco

Alan Deane Alex Gaytan Alexandra Angle

Alexandra Salazar Angelina Sanchez

Brenda Alira

Bud Mitchener

Charles Adelman

Christina Turrietta

Delia Cortez

Diana Duran Dmitry Rychokov

Delores de Leon

Elizabeth Pascencia Emanuela Giangregorio Esther Aguirre Esther Angel

Frank Gurule George Patton

Giovanni Flores

Jack Conrad Jason Weisgerber

Jennifer Toledo

John Bell Johnny Malone Jr.

Jose Lucero

Karen Klabin

Lilian Giuon18

Lisa Mitchener

Lisa Warshaw

Lourdes Welch

LR London

Marcie Adam Margarita Guzman Maria Anaya

Maria Eseobar Mary Lorden

Matilde Sanchez

Michele Gessner

Neeka Johnson

Nichole Jones

Norma Diaz

Patricia Martinez Roger Ramsay

Rosalina Rios Rufina Lopez Sanja Kaleuc

Silvia Perez

Socorro Gaeta

Tatiana Valencia

William Gastelum

Xochiel Ortiz Yu Jung Choi Fred Alimbeyao

Luis Cabrales

Darek Leiner Joe Keoughan Karen Pope Kathy Moore Karen Shoop

Michael W. Evans Robert Lindsay Ray Suhler

Beth Nelson Will Yeager

Dinda Evans

Elena Perez-Davis

Ted Baer

Louise Johnson Rayline Dean

Les Robert Dean Williams Briggs, Jr.

Charlene Chauvaux

Jeff Lewis19

Lara Abrams-Melman Danny DeTora

Anai Abarra

James Denison Robert Lassiter and Family

Ruthie Seroussi Natashja Dewolfe

Julie Owen Flynn Gourley

Susan Gill Jane Langley

Ian Noah

Jack Wilson Kathryn Hargreaves Thomas Conroy

Janet Lassman

William Hsu

Linda Weiner

Cassandra Gomez

Mark Stout

Candice Kim

Laura Fultz Sarah Sharpe

Lisa Warshaw

Caleb L

Luis Olmedo

Anna Bellin Monica McKey

Mark Reback

James J. Provenzano

G Lincoln

Peter Klosterman

Heidi Sanborn Henry Wang Lena Tong Tony Sourmany Will Yeager

Michael Evans

Jason Bowman Yuko Nakajima Big Daddy Randall Tyers

Michael Toobert

Brian and Rita Cohen Stacy Thompson20 Comments Received During the15-day Public Comment P eriod

Abbreviation Commenter

3GI Jeremy Owens 3 Generations Improvements Written testimony: August 21, 2008

ABP Mike Flanagan

President Advantage Building Products Written testimony: August 19, 2008

CSPA-4 D. Douglas Fratz Vice President, Scientific & Technical Affairs Joseph T. Yost Director, Strategic Issues Advocacy Consumer Specialty Products Association Written testimony: August 25, 2008

DARCO-2 Darlene Coe

DARCO Sales Written testimony: August 26, 2008

VDI Richard Arnett Vinyl Designs Inc. Written testimony: August 26, 200821



### A. 45-DAY COMMENTS

1. General Comments

A-1. Comment : I'm here to support the Board proposal as written. There are a few categories that have very technology-forcing limits, and we plan on working very closely with the staff to make sure th at all the information gets across to them and that these products remain viable. [NAA-2]

A-2. Comment : We support the staff recommendation on the proposed limits that are before you. [SCAQMD-2]

A-3. Comment : We support the comments from the rest of the indust ry folks. [CRC]

A-4. Comment : I urge you to adopt the strongest possible regulati on today. [ALA]

A-5. Comment : We do support the staff proposal. [Sierra]

A-6. Comment : We support the staff recommendations. [SherWill]

A-7. Comment: As a consumer and concerned citizen, I urge the C alifornia Air Resources Board to adopt tougher regulations on consumer products. [CCAltr]

A-8. Comment : We're supportive overall of the staff proposal. [CC A-2]

A-9. Comment : We support the proposed amendment to the Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products. [Falcon]

Agency Response to Comments A-1 through A-9 : The Board approved staff’s proposal with staff’s suggested mo difications.

A-10. Comment : The new VOC limits and proposed provisions in the A RB staff proposal present a very serious and costly fo rmulating and marketing challenge. The Consumer Specialty Products Associa tion (CSPA) has agreed to meet the technical challenges necessary t o comply with most of these stringent VOC limits proposed by the staff. [ CSPA-3]

Agency Response : Comment noted. Staff agrees there will be costs associated with reformulation and marketing. We also believe that compliance with all volatile organic c ompound (VOC) limits is achievable in the timeframes provided.22

A-11. Comment : We are very pleased that staff included language re defining dilutable products (pg. ES-13) in spray bottles. D ilutable products bottled in containers that appear to be for immediate use s hould be required to

reduce their VOC limits.

We want to use this opportunity to encourage CARB t o also pay attention to other products designed to be diluted. It is ve ry important that we assume that not all consumers follow diluting instr uctions to the letter. Therefore, in an effort to continue identifying emi ssions reductions alternatives, CARB should account for the potential emissions of other consumer products that should be diluted. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response : The Board approved staff’s proposal related to products designed to be diluted. This provision is contained in section 94509(b)(4). It applies to all products so ld in pump spray bottles that are designed to be diluted and are sub ject to the VOC limit specified in section 94509(a). There is no r eason to account for other consumer products that are to be diluted because the adopted language applies to the universe of consume r products regulated by ARB.

A-12. Comment : We are very supportive of staff’s efforts to start looking at global warming emissions from consumer products. M any consumer products and their ingredients contribute directly and indirectly to the GHG emissions. We want to encourage this agency to thin k about the possibility of addressing those products and or their ingredien ts and make California the first State that officially takes steps to redu ce our Global Warming foot print. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response : The Board approved staff’s proposal related to reducing the use of greenhouse gases in Pressuri zed Gas Duster products.

A-13. Comment : While Solvents Industry Group does not dispute the potential

benefits to the ozone associated with a reduction i n volatile organic compounds (VOCs), we believe that California can mo re effectively and efficiently meet CARB’s emission reduction targets by focusing on VOC reactivity instead of percentage mass-based limitat ion. [The commenter provides additional information to support their co ntention that reactivitybased standards are appropriate from a technical st andpoint and that there is both a regulatory and policy framework to support reactivity-based standards.] [ACC]

Agency Response : Staff agrees that reducing VOCs results in

reductions in ozone concentrations. As to whether a reactivitybased or mass-based approach would provide a more e ffective and23 efficient emission reduction, staff routinely evalu ates each category proposed for regulation to determine which approach provides a greater overall reduction. For the categories that are the subject of this rulemaking, staff determined that the mass-bas ed approach provided a more feasible regulatory strategy. Ther efore, the massbased approach was proposed by staff and approved b y the Board. We agree that reactivity-based standards are approp riate in some instances. As noted by the commenter, ARB has alre ady adopted an aerosol coatings regulation that limits the reac tivity rather than

the mass of the VOCs used.

A-14. Comment : CSPA fully supports the proposed addition of ethoxy

nonafluorobutane (HFE 7200) to the list of compound s excluded from the definition of “Volatile Organic Compound.” This ch emical is needed for use in some of the products currently subject to VO C limits. As we noted
in our comments submitted on November 30, 2007, on the Draft ARB Staff Report on “Environmental Impact Assessment of Selec ted Halogenated Compounds,” CSPA also believes that several other o f the halogenated solvents that have petitioned for exemption as negl igibly reactive should also be considered for exemption, and urges ARB to consider such exemptions in future rulemakings.

We also continue to support the exemption of t-buty l acetate [TBAC] , a solvent that has likewise been clearly demonstrated to exhibit negligible photochemical reactivity, and could play a valuable role in VOC reductions for some consumer products. [CSPA-1]

Agency Response : The Board approved the exemption of

HFE 7200 from the definition of VOC. Staff does no t intend to propose VOC exemptions for the other halogenated co mpounds that are the subject of the report titled “Environm ental Impact Assessment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals.” As described in the report, staff found that exempting any of the o ther halogenated compounds could result in adverse environmental imp acts. Although not part of this rulemaking, staff is curr ently evaluating whether an exemption for TBAC is appropriate.

A-15. Comment : CARB and OEHHA’s objection in 2001 was that there w as insufficient toxicological information data to prop erly assess the potential risk of exempting tert-butyl acetate (TBAC). Nonet heless, CARB staff

asked OEHHA to estimate a theoretical cancer risk f or humans based on

chronic data for its TBA metabolite. The OEHHA ana lysis was published in 2004 and its conclusions were sharply criticized by leading experts in carcinogenicity. To date, the OEHHA analysis has n ot been validated by the Carcinogen Identification Committee and neither tert-butyl alcohol (TBA), nor TBAC, has been listed as a potential car cinogen in California or24 elsewhere. In 2007, we provided OEHHA and CARB wit h the results of additional toxicology studies and expert opinions t hat confirm that TBAC and TBA are not genotoxic and are unlikely to be ca rcinogenic to humans. These new studies have still not been reviewed by O EHHA.

CARB staff has apparently not done what it said it would do, which is to evaluate TBAC use in consumer product categories li kely to use it. These product categories include adhesives, caulks, and s ealants, automotive wax/polish/sealant/glaze, brake, carburetor, and ai r intake cleaners, engine degreasers, paint strippers and graffiti rem overs, silicone based lubricants, and aerosol undercoatings. TBAC is unl ikely to be used in household or personal care products, with the possi ble exception of nail polish and removers, because of its strong odor and flammability. It is

unfortunate that CARB staff continues to focus on O EHHA’s speculative concerns instead of the significant and tangible he alth and environmental benefits that will result when TBAC is exempted. OE HHA’s concerns about TBAC’s potential chronic toxicity are also of questionable relevance to non-occupational use of consumer products. Ther e is still an urgent need for safer and effective consumer products that do not contribute to a serious ozone problem in California. In many of th e product categories for which CARB is proposing stricter VOC content limits , VOC-exempt. TBAC is the answer to that need. [Lyondell]

Agency Response : Although this comment is not directed at the proposed amendments, for completeness staff respond s as follows: Staff is currently evaluating whether a VOC exempti on for TBAC is appropriate within the Consumer Products Regulation

.

A-16. Comment : Please note on page 4 of regulation, the use of th e name American Society for Testing and Materials is incor rect. Since 2001, the official name of our standards organization has bee n “ASTM International” and should be referenced accordingly.

Any information that is referenced from these docu ments should be updated accordingly in order to reflect the most cu rrent standard and information. ASTM International’s standards change frequently. It is more

effective to cite the ASTM standard without a date or provide some language to insure the use of the most current vers ion. [ASTM]

Agency Response : As to changing the definition for ‘ASTM’ in section 94508(a), staff agrees and will propose a m odification to the definition in a subsequent rulemaking. As for the references to the ASTM standards, staff references the most recent st andards we have been able to review, and determine that those methods are appropriate for our work. Because ASTM Internation al frequently changes their standards, it is not practical, or ne cessary, for ARB to25 constantly make changes to the regulations just to update the

ASTM International standards. To insure that those subject to the requirements of the regulation understand how the r egulation is enforced it is necessary to date the ASTM method us ed. The Office of Administrative Law also requires that a s pecific date be

listed for each referenced test method.

A-17. Comment : We support the decision to withdraw the “Not for Retail Sale” definition. This is a very complicated term to def ine with far-reaching implications. More time is needed to work on this issue. [NAA-1; CSPA-1; CSPA-2]

Agency Response : We agree. At the hearing, staff proposed, and the Board approved, a modification to delete th e proposed definition. Staff determined it may be more approp riate to explain the concept of “Not for Retail Sale” in one of our routine

enforcement advisories.

A-18. Comment : CSPA believes that the best way to remove any poten tial ambiguity as to whether the ARB’s regulatory provis ions apply to specific products would be to clarify the definitions for th ese product categories. We believe that the following two definitions would result in clear demarcations for the products currently considered by ARB to be subject to the applicable VOC limits.

(68) “General Purpose Degreaser” means any product labeled to remove or dissolve grease, grime, oil and other oil -based contaminants from a variety of substrates, includin g automotive or miscellaneous metallic parts. “General Purpose Deg reaser” does not include “Engine Degreaser," “General Purpose Cl eaner," “Adhesive Remover," “Electronic Cleaner,” “Electric al Cleaner,” “Energized Electrical Cleaner,” “Metal Polish/Clean ser," products used exclusively in “solvent cleaning tanks or rela ted equipment,” or products that are sold exclusively (directly and /or by distributors) for use in establishments which manuf acture or construct goods or commodities; and labeled for man ufacturer use only. “Solvent cleaning tanks or related equipment” inc ludes, but is not limited to, cold cleaners, vapor degreas ers, conveyorized degreasers, film cleaning machines, or products des igned to clean miscellaneous metallic parts by immersion in a cont ainer. “General Purpose Degreaser” includes products sold in retail outlets or wholesale locations to nonmanufacturing

consumers.

(89) “Lubricant” means a product designed to reduce friction, heat, noise, or wear between moving parts, or to loosen r usted or26 immovable parts or mechanisms. “Lubricant” does no t include automotive power steering fluids; products for use inside power generating motors, engines, and turbines, and their associated power-transfer gearboxes; two cycle oils or other p roducts designed to be added to fuels; products for use on the human body

or animals or products that are sold exclusively (directly and/or by distributors) for use in establishments which ma nufacture or construct goods or commodities, and labeled for manufacturer use only. “Lubricant” includes produc ts sold in

retail outlets or wholesale locations to non-manufa cturing

consumers.

These changes would provide a very clear demarcatio n between what products are subject to this Consumer Product Regul ation and we urge ARB to adopt this approach to making this important clarification.

In addition, we believe that ARB should consider ma king this clarification as it applies to the other product categories that may include some manufacturer-use-only products outside of the scope of “Consumer Products” as it is defined in this regulation to in clude Institutional Products”

or “Institutional and Industrial Products.” This co uld be accomplished by revising the definition for Institutional Products to read as follows:

“Institutional Product” or “Industrial and Institut ional (I&I) Product” means a consumer product that is designed for use i n the maintenance or operation of an establishment that: (A) manufactures, transports, or sells goods or commodi ties, or provides services for profit; or (B) is engaged in the nonprofit promotion of a particular public, educational, or c haritable cause. “Establishments” include, but are not limited to, g overnment agencies, factories, schools, hospitals, sanitarium s, prisons, restaurants, hotels, stores, automobile service and parts centers, health clubs, theaters, or transportation companies . “Institutional Product” does not include household products and products that are sold exclusively (directly and/or by distributo rs) for use in establishments which manufacture or construct goods or commodities, and labeled for manufacturer use only. “Institutional Product” includes products sold in r etail outlets or wholesale locations to non-manufacturing consume rs.

In conclusion, CSPA believes that these narrowly-ta ilored revisions will eliminate any potential ambiguity as to the applica bility of the ARB’s regulatory standards. Moreover, the revisions will promote efforts by the ARB Staff to restrict the sale of unregulated produ cts to consumers. [CSPA-1]27 Agency Response : Staff disagrees with the comment. Staff believes the current product category definitions a re sufficiently clear. In addition, staff believes the proposed la nguage suggested by the commenter contains ambiguous terms that will impede clarity rather than promote it. However, as always , staff is open to continuing dialogue with all stakeholders to insure regulatory clarity.

A-19. Comment : This has been a somewhat difficult rulemaking. Eac h rulemaking has been a little bit more difficult tha n the last in many aspects. But we are meeting the -- or being able to commit t o meet these new challenges because of the excellent work of your st aff over the last nine months. We hope that all of these new limits will prove feasible for our members and our products. But I can tell you from a long experience that each rulemaking and each new standard is becoming m ore difficult and

less cost effective in our contributions towards cl ean air. According to staff estimates, this rulemaking will cost our indu stry $260 million, while providing just under six tons of reductions in VOCs per day. Many of these new limits will require dozens of products to be reformulated in order to get under 200 pounds a day of reduction statewid e. One new limit will require 52 products to be reformulated in order to obtain a hundred pounds a day in VOC reductions. The staff has ackn owledged in the staff reports we need to find new innovative reduction st rategies for consumer products in the long term. Our industry is pledged to contributing in any way we can towards clean air here in California and also nationwide. But command and control regulations are becoming more a nd more difficult. The setting of new standards across broad categorie s is going to eventually lead to infeasible limits if it hasn't d one so already. We've sponsored many scientific studies over the last 20 years just to look at ozone attainment and ozone attainment strategies. The very low impact

of our VOCs is well established in those studies. And the reactivity -- the very low reactivity of our VOCs means they are one- fifth as much ozone impact as the highest reactivity sources. NOx redu ctions are five times more effective in ozone reductions per weight than VOC reductions. The $260 million that we're pledging to invest today pr obably could be used elsewhere to much better effect, with much higher c ontributions to ozone reduction; much higher contributions in addition to particulate matter reductions and to global warming. [CSPA-2]

Agency Response : The commenter does not disagree that VOC emission reductions will help reduce ozone, but sug gests that it might be better to regulate nitrogen oxide (NOx) or other pollutants instead of VOCs. We do not agree. VOC emissions r eductions –

in addition to NOx emission reductions – are still necessary to attain federal and state ozone standards as expedit iously as possible.28

A-20. Comment : According to your staff’s own estimates, after SIP measures are implemented, 2010 VOC emissions from consumer p roducts will be approximately 220 to 235 tons per day (tpd). Addit ionally, consumer products will be the second largest source category of VOC emissions in 2010 (tied with trucks and buses), and in 2020 thes e products will be the leading source of VOC emissions. Unfortunately, th e current version of the Consumer Products Regulation will reduce VOCs b y just 1.7 tpd in 2010, less than one percent of total expected emiss ions. Yielding to industry demands, staff has suggested numerous dela ys in deadlines

associated with emission reductions for different c onsumer product categories, such that full benefits associated with the 2008 proposal will not be achieved until 2015. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response : Staff agrees that consumer products are an important source category and further reductions in VOC emissions are necessary. The amendments proposed in this rul emaking will reduce statewide VOC emissions by 5.8 tpd when full y effective in

2015. The effective dates are based on the commerc ial and technological feasibility of the limits, not indust ry demands, as suggested by the commenter.



### 2. Comments on Specific Categories

Astringent/Toner

A-21. Comment : A full range of non-over-the-counter (non-OTC) alco hol astringents and toners is necessary for certain aff ected individuals and groups. [Ghadially-1]

Agency Response : We agree and believe the proposed limit allows a full range of non-OTC products with, and w ithout ethanol,

to remain available to address all needs. We also note that prescription drugs and those products subject to Fo od and Drug Administration (FDA) rules are not included in this category. If necessary, over-the-counter drug products and presc ription products remain available to address specific needs

.

A-22. Comment : I may have been misquoted and would like to set the record straight, “I have never stated in writing or verbal ly that a 25 percent alcohol level would be an acceptable cap in this ca tegory. In the course of our meetings and in my correspondence, I have stres sed my strong medical opinion that higher levels of alcohol in pr oducts are needed by certain affected individuals and groups.” [Ghadiall y-2]

Agency Response : Staff acknowledges the comment.29

A-23. Comment : We are very disappointed that staff increased the p roposed VOC limit [for Astringent/Toner] from 10 percent to 35 percent. We would like to see a standardization of this industry. Ma ny manufacturers of nonmedicinal, non-FDA regulated astringent/toners alre ady manufacture 10 percent VOC limit products. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response : We agree that many products with 10 percent VOC are available and initially proposed a limit of 10 percent by weight. However, during further development of the proposal, and as explained in the ISOR, Chapter VI, page VI-64, s taff learned that a 2:1 part water to alcohol ratio may be necessary for some products, designed for use on oily skin, to effecti vely dissolve

sebum.

Therefore, the 35 percent VOC limit is necessary to ensure commercial and technological feasibility of this pr oduct category. See also the Agency Response to comment A-24.

A-24. Comment : We have come to agreement on virtually all except f or one small, but important, category, and that's the astr ingent category. To remind you of the numbers, the staff's proposal is a 35 percent cap on the VOCs in these products. The principal VOCs of the products we're talking about are ethanol. And typically the products today are formulated at the higher end for the purpose served at about a 60 per cent VOC limit. These are health benefit products. And the active ingred ient is -- Dr. Balmes and Dr. Telles would know -- is the VOC in the product, the ethanol that cleans the pores and cleans the skin. We've had two promi nent California dermatologists meet with staff to express their be lief that the 35 percent limit is going to adversely affect many people with acne problems who can't -- in part, the people who can't spend money going to see those dermatologists because they don't either have the m oney or they don't have the health coverage, and they will be dispropo rtionately impacted by these products not being available to them through the supermarket or drugstore at the levels currently proposed -- or cu rrently produced. And as you all know, the acne is a principal problem, p hysical and psychological, for many young people, not just in C alifornia. The higher VOC level products that are currently produced are needed to address severe oily skin. The 35 percent limit is not goin g to be sufficient. We have suggested that at least the Board consider rai sing that number to 40 percent. And we would ask you to do that today, or put off this particular category until industry can do the definitive clini cal study, which staff has agreed doesn't exist yet, in order to demonstrate t he need for these higher level VOC products to meet the health needs of many , many Californians. What I think we're going to see is that people buy the products that will be remaining on the marketplace and simply have to use more of them, and we might end up in exactly the same place. This pr oposal as it stands in30 the staff report gets you 220 pounds. Forty percent instead of would get you approximately – I think staff would agree - hal f of that, 110 pounds. So we're talking about a small amount of pounds, no t tons, per day of emissions for a health benefit product that we thin k is necessary, the

doctors who we've consulted with believe is necessa ry. We would ask you either to adjust the number to 40 or put this o ver until we can do the clinical study that would demonstrate the need. [PC PC; CSPA-1]

Agency Response : The Agency Response to comments A-21 and A-23 are incorporated herein. We believe the p roposed limit maintains efficacy among the variety of products cu rrently available and allows for a full range of products with all cu rrent label claims to be maintained. As stated in Chapter VI, Page VI-64 of the ISOR, a 2:1 part water to alcohol ratio may be necessary fo r some Astringent/Toner products to effectively dissolve s ebum on oily skin. Based on this information, the proposed 35 p ercent VOC limit is the lowest technologically and commercially feas ible VOC limit for these products. It should be noted that this r ulemaking does not affect Astringents/Toners regulated by FDA or presc ription drugs.

A-25. Comment : Food and Drug Branch cannot oppose the reduction of alcohol to 10% in non-medicated astringents/toners. [CEH]

Agency Response : Staff acknowledges the comment.

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner

A-26. Comment : The Clorox Company supports staff’s proposed limit of 5% for Aerosol forms of Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners, ef fective on December 31, 2010. [Clorox]

Agency Response : The Board approved staff’s proposal of a five percent by weight VOC limit for aerosol Carpet/Upho lstery Cleaner.

A-27. Comment : We do not support the limit for Aerosol Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner. The current limit is 7%; the proposed lim it is 5%. We believe that a six percent VOC limit is more clearly techno logically and commercially feasible for the aerosol Carpet/Uphols tery Cleaner Category. [NAA-1; CSPA-1]

Agency Response : Staff disagrees with this comment. The complying market share data from the 2003 Survey, d iscussions with industry stakeholders, as well as staff’s own research demonstrate that a five percent VOC limit is commer cially and technologically feasible.31

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product

A-28. Comment : We recommend that no regulatory action relating to this product category be taken. We remain concerned wit h setting a VOC limit for this category, and the possible consequences th at this limit could have on VOCs and other potential air emissions. Recogni zing that the VOCs present in these products are essentially all fragr ance materials, we expect consumers to respond to decreased fragrance levels in dryer sheet products by using multiple sheets. That would lead to increased product use, offsetting ARB’s projected reductions in VOC e missions from these products. Further, increased product consumption w ill create unintended air emissions over the life cycle of the products ( i.e., increased green house gas emissions from increased transportation) that run counter to ARB’s overarching air quality goals. [SDA-1; CSPA-1 ]

Agency Response : We disagree. According to the 2003 Survey, the sales weighted average VOC content for this cat egory is about 0.08 grams per sheet, with fragrance as the primary VOC ingredient. Of the 26 products reported in the 200 3 Survey, only 6 products would need to be reformulated to comply wi th staff’s proposal of 0.05 grams of VOC per use. These data indicate the limit to be commercially and technologically feasib le in accordance with State law. Therefore, it is appropriate to pr opose a VOC limit for this category.

Staff does not believe that the proposal would sign ificantly change consumer usage. Staff is not aware of any consumer usage studies that directly support the Soap and Detergent Association’s (SDA) expectation regarding how consumers will resp ond to reduced fragrance products. SDA’s contention is th at the reformulated products will be perceived as inadequa te because of reductions in fragrance, and implies that the consu mer will essentially begin doubling the number of sheets per load of clothes dried. According to information provided by SDA, a bout 80 percent

of consumers who use fabric softener sheets use one sheet or less per drying cycle. As the non-fragrance attributes of the products (softening and controlling static cling) will be un changed, staff believes that it is highly unlikely that customers would want to double the cost of clothes drying by using double t he amount of product.

Additionally, staff’s proposal for a “grams of VOC per use” limit was designed to mitigate the potential for an increase in the size of the sheet substrate. In developing the proposal for th ese products, staff determined that establishing a “VOC percent b y weight” limit could result in manufacturers using larger size she ets. This could32 diminish emissions reductions and lead to increasin g the solid waste stream. Therefore, the “grams of VOC per use ” limit was proposed instead of a “VOC percent by weight” limit . Staff has no

reason to believe that this limit will result in VO C and greenhouse gas emissions increases.

A-29. Comment : We respectfully disagree with ARB’s staff assessmen t that “no data were provided to support this claim” (Staf f Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), pages 83 and 84). Con trary to the staff’s report concluding that industry did not provide any data to support our position, the SDA and its members made numerous sub missions and presentations to the ARB on this category (see list of SDA submissions and presentations enclosed, as well as documented i n ISOR). We recommend that ARB staff amend their statement on p ages 83 and 84 by replacing the noted sentence in the “Response” sect ions as follows: “Industry submitted data based on consumer studies to support the claim, but it is the opinion of the staff that the data su bmitted were insufficient.” [SDA-1]

Agency Response : Staff acknowledges and appreciates SDA submissions and presentations related to this categ ory. In stating that “no data were provided to support this claim,” staff did not intend to imply that no information was provided by SDA and its
members. Rather, this statement was intended to co nvey that we had not received information that directly supporte d SDA’s expectation that consumer usage would increase with use of reformulated products. While staff has no disagree ment with recommended alternative language, the staff report has already been published and cannot now be changed.

A-30. Comment : We are very disappointed that staff increased VOC l imits and compliance dates for several categories, most o f which we believe could comply with more health-focused limits and sh orter deadlines. The VOC limit for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Pr oduct was increased from 0.05 percent to 0.1 percent. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response : The commenter is incorrect. In developing our proposal for this category, staff first conside red establishing a percent by weight VOC standard of 0.1 percent, but has never proposed a standard of 0.05 percent. After consult ing with industry representatives, staff proposed, and at the hearing , the Board approved, a 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit includi ng fragrance

. The VOC emission reductions achieved are equivalent to setting a 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit including fragrance

.33 The limit was designed to mitigate the potential fo r adverse environmental impacts should manufacturers choose t o increase the size of the sheet substrate to comply with a pe rcent by weight limit. The proposed compliance date of December 31 , 2010 was not changed. The commenter offers no data to suppo rt the claim

that the limit could be “more health-focused” or ac hievable in a shorter compliance timeframe.

A-31. Comment : I do not want to see the upper limit for VOC’s for dryer sheets and fabric softeners doubled, or increased a t all in fact. The present limits cause the impact of consumer use of these products to reach distances greater than 300 feet. [Ray]

Agency Response : Contrary to the view expressed in this comment, staff’s proposal results in decreasing emi ssions from the previously unregulated category of Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product. The proposed limit of 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit would require some manufacturers to reduce th e amount of VOC, mainly fragrance, used in the formulation of d ryer-added fabric softener products. The estimated VOC emissi on reduction for this category is approximately 0.21 tpd by Dece mber 31, 2010.

A-32. Comment : There has been discussion that only 1 company makes these products [Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product] and limiting the emissions would divulge trade secrets. That ar gument is illogical. Companies exist that can reformulate products such as those to provide the list of chemicals used in them. Unfortunately this is not widely known as of yet. Neither are the specific ingredients wi dely known. [Ray]

Agency Response : The commenter is incorrect related to companies manufacturing Fabric Softener – Single Us e Dryer Product. According to the 2003 Survey, approximate ly 20 companies reported dryer-added fabric softener prod ucts. Staff provided the necessary data for the public to evalu ate the proposal without compromising manufacturers’ confidential bu siness information [see Chapter VI, pages VI-104 and VI-10 5 of staff report]. Based on these data, staff proposed, and the Board approved, a VOC limit which would reduce emissions by 0.21 tpd by December 31, 2010.

A-33. Comment : We have a concern about... fabric softener. It's a novel category, as was reflected in the way in which it's being regulated as a number of grams per sheet. We are concerned that b ecause of that differential, there's going to be some confusion. The consumers have a tendency to use these products by number of sheets. And in the initial statement of reasons on Page 83 there's an attempt to address the issue34 that perhaps consumers at lower VOC emissions will instead use multiple sheets instead of single sheets. It was noted with in the Statement of Reasons that we had not brought forth data. And al though the data's a little bit unusual when it's market research data, we did bring forth data that demonstrated that consumers do have a tendency when they don't find their clothes sufficiently freshened in the si ngle cycle, that they'll use multiple sheets or return the clothing for a second cycle. ARB notes that the staff will use its periodic surveys to monitor product sales and take appropriate action if any unanticipated increased u se is occurring. It is our concern that that might happen and it would take so me time before the

Board would have this drawn to their attention. So we do believe that this is a premature regulation, although we do see that the staff has worked with us to a significant extent.

If you should decide to implement the regulation in any case, we are concerned about the differential in the way in whic h fragrance is being addressed. It is an exception to the normal use wh ere the manufacturers have an exemption for a certain amount of fragrance . And we would just like to make sure that there's sufficient training for some manufacturers who might not be aware or understand that it is a d ifferent category (fabric softener - single use dryer product). [SDA-2]

Agency Response : Staff disagrees that the regulation is premature and incorporates the Agency Response to c omment 28 herein. We do not expect the consumer to be confus ed because it is unlikely that the use directions on the product will change. Consumers will use the product as they have always done. We acknowledge that the commenter provided market rese arch data, however the data did not support the contention tha t more sheets

would be used.

As is always done, staff will monitor product sales through periodic consumer products surveys, to ensure that unintende d consequences of establishing the proposed VOC limit do not occur. Related to training, during development of the prop osal, staff worked closely with stakeholders to ensure the prop osal was understood. Conference calls were held to specific ally explain the proposal to affected stakeholders and answer questi ons.

Fragrance is the primary ingredient that will be re duced to comply with the 0.05 grams VOC per use limit. The 0.05 gr ams of VOC per use limit provides emission reductions equivalent t o setting a 2.6 percent by weight limit including fragrance (or a 0.6 percent by weight limit with application of the existing 2 per cent fragrance exemption in section 94510(c) of the Consumer Produ cts Regulation). However, because the proposed limit a lready includes35 an allowance for up to 2 percent of fragrance, ther e is no need to provide the fragrance exemption for this category. Thus, in addition to the limit, staff proposed and the Board approved , amendments to section 94510(c) that specify that the fragrance ex emption does not apply to Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product . The VOC limit and modification to the fragrance exemption w ill become effective December 31, 2010, which should provide s ufficient time

for ARB staff to inform and educate manufacturers a ffected by this regulation, if needed.

Floor Maintenance Product

A-34. Comment : CSPA urges ARB to incorporate the following narro wly-tailed revision to the proposed definition.

Floor Maintenance Product means any product designe d or labeled to restore, maintain, or enhance a previously appli ed floor finish. “Floor Maintenance Product” includes, but not limit ed to, products that are labeled as Spray Buff products or Floor Ma intainers or

Restorers. “Floor Maintenance Product” does not in clude floor polish products, products designed solely for the p urpose of cleaning, or products designed specifically for use on marble floors, or coatings subject to architectural coatings regul ations.

This revision will make the definition for the newl y regulated Maintenance

Products consistent with the definition for the “Fl oor Polish or Wax” product category. [CSPA-1]

A-35. Comment : CSPA supports ARB’s Action to Clarify the Definit ion of the

Term “Floor Maintenance Product.” The modification to the definition for this product category removes any potential ambigui ty as to applicable regulatory limits. [CSPA-2]

Agency Response to Comments A-34 and A-35 : Staff agrees and proposed revisions to the definition of Furnitu re Maintenance Product at the hearing. The proposed modifications were approved by the Board.

A-36. Comment : CSPA continues to believe that the ARB should provi de

additional time for manufacturers to reformulate Fl oor Maintenance Products. Specifically, CSPA believes that a 2012 effective date for the new VOC limit for this product category would provi de a more reasonable and achievable schedule. [CSPA-1]

Agency Response : Staff disagrees that a 2012 effective date is necessary for this category. We believe the techno logy is available36 for these products to be successfully reformulated by the proposed effective date of December 31, 2010. Data from the 2003 Survey for Floor Maintenance Products indicate a high comp lying market share at the proposed limit. This indicates that t echnology is readily available for successful reformulation in t his time-frame.

Glass Cleaner

A-37. Comment : We support the ARB staff’s proposal for aerosol Gla ss Cleaner of 10% VOC in 12/31/2012. [Stoner-1]

A-38. Comment : I'm here today to support staff's proposal for the aerosol glass cleaner category. The staff proposal is to r educe this product category to a 10 percent VOC limit. This reduction will not be easy for our company. Our customers expect a high quality produ ct that provides strong cleaning and a transparent finished surface. Our company will spend resources reducing the VOC content while main taining this high quality product. [Stoner-2; Plaze]

Agency Response to Comments A-37 and A-38 : The Board approved staff’s proposal for aerosol Glass Cleaner

.

A-39. Comment : We are very disappointed that staff increased VOC limits and compliance dates for several categories, most of wh ich we believe could comply with more health-focused limits and shorter deadlines. The VOC

limit for Glass Cleaner increased from 8% to 10% an d compliance dates increased from 2010 to 2012. [CCA, et al]

Agency Response : Prior to the release of the staff report, staff initially proposed a VOC limit of eight percent eff ective December 31, 2010. However, further technical disc ussions with stakeholders demonstrated that the proposal would n ot be technologically feasible by the proposed effective date.

Reformulated products, while effective, may have di fferent attributes than the consumer is used to for some pr oducts. Because of this, test marketing prior to bringing t he reformulated products to market may be required. For these reas ons, staff believes more time for compliance is warranted.

In response to this technical information, the prop osal in the staff report includes a 10 percent by weight VOC limit ef fective December 31, 2012. Staff did not propose further c hanges after publication of the staff report.37 The commenter provided no data to support the claim that the limit

could be “more health-focused” or achievable within a shorter compliance timeframe.

Motor Vehicle Wash

A-40. Comment : CSPA supports ARB’s action clarifying the applica bility of the regulatory limit for the “Motor Vehicle Wash” produ ct category. The modification to the Motor Vehicle Wash product cate gory in the Table of Standards unambiguously conveys ARB’s intent that t he stringent new VOC limit applies only to the nonaerosol form of th is particular product category. [CSPA-2]

Agency Response : Subsequent to release of the staff report, staff received information indicating that aerosol Motor Vehicle Wash products were being sold in California. These prod ucts did not exist at the time survey data were collected. Ther efore, to insure commercial and technological feasibility, for aeros ol products, staff proposed a modification to clarify that the limit a pplies only to nonaerosol products.

The Board approved staff’s proposal with staff’s su ggested modifications, including the proposal for Motor Veh icle Wash.

A-41. Comment : The current definition of “Motor Vehicle Wash” will ban our aerosol form of the product. [Meguiar’s; Plaze; NA A-1; CSPA-1]

Agency Response : Staff agrees with the comment. In response, at the Board hearing, staff proposed a modification to the original proposal such that no product forms are eliminated. The Agency Response to comment 40 is incorporated herein.

A-42. Comment : As currently drafted, the proposed definition for t his product category would include wash and wax products, as we ll as products that

are not diluted or rinsed off with water. It would therefore include all forms of spray and wipe products and would eliminate the aerosol form for motor vehicle cleaners. These products may not be common , but they can play an important role in water conservation by allowing automotive exteriors to be cleaned without the use of water. Therefore, CS PA recommends the following narrowly-tailored revision to the definit ion for this newly-regulated product category.

(99) “Motor Vehicle Wash” means a product designed or to dilute

with water and labeled to wash, wash and wax, wash and shine,

or wash and/or clean the exterior surface of motor vehicles. “Motor Vehicle Wash” includes, but is not limited to, prod ucts for use in38 commercial, fleet, hand, and “drive through” car wa shes; commercial truck washing or large vehicle washing s tations; vehicle dealers and repair shops as well as products intend ed for

household consumer use. “Motor Vehicle Wash” does n ot include “Bug and Tar Remover,” “Glass Cleaner,” “Tire or Wh eel Cleaner,” and products labeled for use exclusively on locomot ives or aircraft. [CSPA-1]

Agency Response : The commenter is correct in that the definition includes “wash and wax” products as well as product s that are not diluted prior to use (spray and wipe products). Th e proposed modification is not appropriate, however, because t he 2003 Survey data demonstrate that products that do not require dilution are able to comply with the proposed limit. Staff also agre es that the definition would include aerosol products. However , aerosol product forms would not be eliminated because the B oard approved a modification to specify that the VOC lim it applies to non-aerosol products only.

Multi-purpose Lubricant

A-43. Comment : We are very disappointed that staff increased VOC l imits and compliance dates for several categories, most o f which we believe could comply with more health-focused limits and sh orter deadlines. The compliance date for Multi-Purpose Lubricants moved from 2012 to 2013. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response : The proposal in the staff report includes a limit of 25 percent by weight effective December 31 , 2013 and a lower limit of 10 percent by weight effective Decem ber 31, 2015. Staff did not propose further modifications to the original proposal.

The commenter provided no data to support what woul d be considered a “more health-focused limit” or why a s horter compliance date would be feasible.

A-44. Comment : We've come here to support the CARB staff proposal for the multipurpose lubricant categories. [WD-40]

A-45. Comment : We supported the 25 percent VOC limit [for Multi-Pu rpose Lubricant] by 2013, even though we don't have any s olution in hand. We don't know how we're going to do that. We believe i n clean air and we'll do everything we can to support that. And even though we have shown science to the CARB staff and to some of you on the Board that clearly demonstrates that our product performance suffers w hen the VOC content drops, we're moving forward in good faith. WD-40's more than a lubricant.39 It's a penetrant, it's a water displacer, it's a cl eaner, it prevents corrosion and rust. We need the time to develop and successf ully introduce a WD-40 that works as good or better than the current product and also meets, beats all CARB VOC goals. And we -- I want you to know that the WD-40 brand represents 50 percent of our total comp any sales in the United States and 70 percent of our global sales. We're betting the brand and the company on success. And we want you to joi n us in that endeavor by supporting the CARB staff proposal for multipurpose lubricants. [WD-40]

A-46. Comment : We support the limits and effective dates for the M ultipurpose Lubricants and Penetrants category. [Radiat or-1]

A-47. Comment : We are very pleased and supportive, however, that s taff

added a new VOC limit of 10% to be met in 2015 - on e positive improvement we support. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response to Comments A-44 through A-47: The Board approved staff’s proposal to reduce the VOC content of MultiPurpose Lubricant products.

A-48. Comment : CSPA wants to ensure that the record for this rulem aking clearly reflects that we continue to have very sign ificant concerns about the ARB Staff’s proposal to establish a second-tier technology-forcing 10 percent VOC limit that will take effect on Decem ber 31, 2015. Since CSPA members are willing to undertake this challeng e, we do not oppose the proposed second-tier VOC limit. [CSPA-1]

Agency Response : Comment noted. Staff agrees there will be costs associated with reformulation and marketing. We also believe that compliance with all VOC limits is achi evable in the timeframes provided.

A-49. Comment : CSPA has significant concerns about the proposed se cond tier technology-forcing VOC limit for the Multi-pur pose Lubricant products category. There is no known nor reasonably foresee able technology that ensures that these products' current multiple funct ions can be maintained while achieving compliance with a proposed second t ier limit. Many CSPA-member companies have yet to identity feasible product technologies to meet these new VOC limits. Nonethe less, CSPA-member companies are committing to exercise their best goo d faith efforts to push the limits of current technologies in developing a new product technology and formulation in hopes that they will prove to be commercially viable products. To be clear, however, this commitment en tails taking necessary

risk with brand names that have been built over man y years. Therefore, we request that ARB staff commit to work with us to reevaluate these40 limits in the future if they prove to be technologi cally and commercially infeasible. [CSPA-3]

Agency Response : Staff acknowledges these comments and is committed to working with stakeholders as products are reformulated to comply. Based on research and anal ysis, staff

believes both limits to be feasible in the timefram es provided. In light of concerns, however, the approved amendments require that responsible parties must submit written updates on research and development efforts to ARB by March 31, 2012 and an other on March 31, 2014. These updates [see section 94513(f )] will allow staff to monitor progress on manufacturers’ efforts to comply.

Odor Remover/Eliminator

A-50. Comment : CSPA worked cooperatively with ARB staff to assure that this new category definition [Odor Remover/Eliminat or] and VOC limit do not re-regulate currently regulated products, eithe r directly or through Most Restrictive Limit provisions. [CSPA-1]

Agency Response : Comment noted. Staff’s proposal does not re-regulate currently regulated products.

A-51. Comment : We are very disappointed that staff increased VOC l imits and compliance dates for several categories, most o f which we believe could comply with more health-focused limits and sh orter deadlines. The

VOC limits for Odor Remover/Eliminator increased fr om 0.1% to 6% for non-aerosol, and 25% for aerosol; compliance dates increased from 2012 to 2013. [CCA, et al.]

A-52. Comment : Another concern has to do with the increased VOC li mits and compliance dates for several categories listed in this draft. For example, when we talk about odor removers, the issu e that staff had originally intended to set a VOC limit at 0.1 perce nt and came back with a proposal with a 6 percent VOC limit for non-aerosol odor removers and a 25 percent for aerosol odor removers and a complian ce date moved from 2012 to 2013. [CCA-1]

Agency Response to Comments A-51 and A-52 : Related to the non-aerosol VOC limit proposal, the commenter is co rrect. During the course of our investigations into the non-aeros ol product form, staff became aware of patents covering these and si milar products.

In order to ensure that manufacturers would not be faced with potential patent infringement while reformulating t o comply with the 0.1 percent limit, staff increased the proposed lim it to 6 percent by41 weight VOC. A VOC limit of six percent by weight i s achievable without infringing on any patents of which we are a ware.

Related to the aerosol product, ARB staff’s origina l proposal was not increased as the commenter suggests. In the st aff report, staff proposed the 25 percent limit which was approved by the Board.

The commenter incorrectly states the effective date for the limits. A December 31, 2010 compliance date for both aerosol and nonaerosol products was initially proposed by staff, a nd this same date was subsequently approved by the Board.

We also note that these commenters provided no data to support the feasibility of a limit that would be “more heal th-focused” or

achievable within a shorter timeframe.

A-53. Comment : In addition to increasing the VOC limits and compli ance dates for [Odor Remover/Eliminator], CARB staff doe s not want to
disclose the total amount of 2008 VOC emissions cre ated by ALL the aerosol odor removers/eliminators in the market arg uing possible damage to “confidentiality.” It is important that CARB st aff finds a way to inform the public about the amount of emissions created by thi s industry. [CCA, et al.]

A-54. Comment : Failing to release generic statistics on releases o f VOCs or toxins into the air because of patent issues isn’t really a valid argument, although it is used in the food industry as well as the various chemicals industries. (That’s why foods can say “natural fla vors” and have in it any ingredient with a primary purpose of only adding fl avor.) Please note: any of these products can be deformulated by a labo ratory in Florida which specializes in deconstructing fragrance formu lae for the industry. The claim that a patent might be at risk is therefo re invalid. Releasing the total pounds of emissions no more reveals the exact formula than does deformulation by gas chromatography. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response to Comments A-53 and A-54 : ARB has disclosed as much information as possible without d isclosing confidential information. Aggregate emissions data for the aerosol Odor Remover/Eliminator category was included in th e staff report, in such a way as to avoid disclosing confidential c ompany sales and product formulation information, while providin g general information. Contrary to what the commenter sugges ts, data were not withheld due to “patent” considerations.42

Penetrant

A-55. Comment : Radiator Specialty also supports the provision to a llow the

continued manufacture of Penetrants that are non-fl ammable. [Radiator-1]

Agency Response : The Board approved staff’s proposal for nonflammable Penetrants, which should ensure that prod ucts designed for use on energized equipment can continue to be u sed safely.

A-56. Comment : Blaster supports the staff proposal on Penetrants o f 25% VOC limit effective 12/31/2013. [Blaster-1]

A-57. Comment : I'm here today to support the staff's proposal conc erning penetrants. Currently the 25 percent VOC limit is technology forcing and will take a significant reformulation effort. [Blas ter-2]

Agency Response to Comments A-56 and A-57 : At the hearing, the Board approved staff’s proposal for Penetrants.

A-58. Comment : We are very disappointed that staff increased VOC l imits and compliance dates for several categories, most o f which we believe could comply with more health-focused limits and sh orter deadlines. Compliance dates for Penetrants increased from 2012 to 2013. Additionally, we feel that technology allows and st aff could have set this category’s limit at 10%, instead of the 25% VOC lim it suggested. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response : During the development of the regulation, staff initially proposed an effective date of Decem ber 31, 2012. In response, stakeholders provided technical informati on demonstrating the need for an additional year to co mply. Therefore, the proposal contained in the staff repo rt specifies an effective date of December 31, 2013.

Related to proposing a lower VOC limit, the comment er provided no data to support the feasibility of a 10 percent lim it. A 25 percent by weight VOC limit was proposed because staff determi ned this was the lowest commercially and technologically feasibl e limit at this

time.

Personal Fragrance Product

A-59. Comment : In conversations with the staff, we support the sta ff proposal to change the Personal Fragrance definition. The d efinition is being modified to provide clarity that personal hygiene p roducts are not included into this category. This is consistent with the 20 01 survey definition for43 personal hygiene products. This change will provid e clarity for the manufacturer as well as the ARB. [Fleet; NAA-1]

Agency Response : The Board approved staff’s proposal to modify the definition of Personal Fragrance Product

.

A-60. Comment : We are very disappointed that staff increased VOC l imits and compliance dates for several categories, most o f which we believe could comply with more health-focused limits and sh orter deadlines. Compliance dates for Personal Fragrance Products in creased from 2010 to 2014. Personal fragrances are a large emitter of VOCs in the consumer products category (10.77 tpd), thus we are pleased staff will remove grandfather clauses from all products with 20% or l ess fragrance. However, staff should increase the scope of product s whose grandfather clause will be removed and strengthen the VOC limit s suggested— currently at 25%. [CCA, et al.]

Agency Response : This rulemaking removed exemptions from applicable VOC limits (the Grandfather clause), eff ective December 31, 2014, for one subcategory of Personal Fragrance Product: products with 20 percent or less fragranc e. Effective December 31, 2014, all personal fragrance products with 20 percent or less fragrance will be subject to the same VOC limit, namely 75 percent by weight. Staff had considered an earlier effective date of December 31, 2010, but after inpu t from affected industry, proposed a December 31, 2014, effective d ate. This date allows responsible parties sufficient time to refor mulate, test, and market over 400 affected products. Staff’s proposa l achieves a reduction of VOC emissions of more than 0.4 tpd. C ontrary to what the commenter suggests, there is no current limit o f 25 percent VOC for Personal Fragrance Product.

Staff considered but did not propose changes to exe mptions (the grandfather clause) for the Personal Fragrance Prod ucts with more than 20 percent fragrance. This decision recognize d the technical and resource challenge for responsible parties and high cost

relative to limited additional emission reductions. If the exemptions for products with more than 20 percent fragrance we re eliminated, about 300 products would be affected but the additi onal VOC emissions reduction would be less than 0.1 tpd.

Pressurized Gas Duster

A-61. Comment : We support the inclusion of the provision for “Pres surized

Gas Dusters” that allows for the continued manufact ure and use of these44 products around energized circuits and open flames. [Techspray; NAA-1; CSPA-1]

Agency Response : To ensure that these products can continue to be used safely, the Board approved the staff’s prop osal related to Pressurized Gas Duster products designed for use on energized

circuits.

A-62. Comment : CSPA members are willing to accept the challenge of reformulating our products to meet the proposed glo bal warming potential [limit] for pressurized gas dusters. [CSPA-1; CSPA- 3]

A-63. Comment : We are in support of the new requirements for Pre ssurized Gas Dusters to contain a propellant compound that h as a Global Warming Potential (GWP) value of 150 or less. [Falcon]

Agency Response to Comments A-62 and A-63 : The Board approved the staff’s proposal including the require ments for Pressurized Gas Duster products.

A-64. Comment : CSPA supports the definition for “Global Warming Po tential (GWP)” and “Global Warming Potential Value (GWP Val ue)” for the purpose of limiting the GWP of Pressurized Gas Dust er. The choice to define GWP Value through descriptive reference to s ome of the numbers

contained in two tables in a massive United Nations report does, however, presents some practical difficulties for companies seeking to comply with the standard being set for these products. We ther efore request that, if the specific chemicals and GWP Values cannot be exp ressly included in the regulation, ARB staff issue a compliance adviso ry that clearly provides the GWP Values of all of the compounds that must be used in complying with this rule. [CSPA-1]

Agency Response : In the regulation staff incorporated by

reference two tables within the 1995 Second Assessm ent Report (SAR) which is contained in “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Sciences Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Within this document, Tables 2.14 and 2.1 5 are easily

found. The document is available on the internet. The document was also made available in the context of the subje ct rulemaking in the manner specified in Government Code section 113 64.7 and is

accessible from ARB’s website.

These tables are of limited interest to the consume r products industry and will only be used by a few manufacture rs of Pressurized Gas Duster products. Therefore these t wo tables were45 incorporated by reference because it would be cumbe rsome and unnecessary to add additional volume to an already complex regulation. It has been a longstanding and accepte d practice for ARB to incorporate by reference the test methods us ed for compliance with the regulation. Stakeholders are a ccustomed to this format. Incorporating these tables by referen ce is an analogous situation.

In addition, prior to the effective date of the lim it, staff committed to develop and distribute an advisory for manufacturer s of Pressurized Gas Duster products, and any other interested stake holder, that lists specific chemicals and their applicable GWP V alues.

A-65. Comment : We have concerns regarding some aspects of this def inition [Pressurized Gas Duster] that may make it not appro priate when and if other product categories are subjected to GWP limit s. In particular, we are concerned about the requirement that the GWP va lue for all chemicals or compounds not assigned a specific value in the U nited Nations report is designated to be equal to the GWP limit for the app licable product category. While this may be a sound practical appr oach for the Pressurized Gas Duster category, it could be inappr opriate for some future categories and formulations. We urge that options remain open to refine this definition in any future rulemaking seeking to establish further GWP limits for consumer products. [CSPA-2]

Agency Response : Staff acknowledges the comment. As part of ARB’s rulemaking process, staff routinely reviews t he existing regulatory provisions in order to determine whether or not amendments are appropriate and necessary. This wil l be done for future rulemakings as requested by the commenter.

A-66. Comment : Industry urges ARB to consider extending the sell-t hrough period for Pressurized Gas Dusters from one-year to three-years. [CSPA-1]

Agency Response : Staff does not believe an extension of the sell-through period is necessary. Because early re ductions are needed to slow climate change, the reductions must occur expeditiously. A faster air quality benefit will b e realized by limiting the sell-through to one year. The California Globa l Warming Solutions Act of 2006, by specifying adoption of Di screte Early Action Measures in Health and Safety Code section 3 8560, shows that the California Legislature intended progress t oward reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) be made as quickly as possi ble. The reduction of GHGs from consumer products is a Discr ete Early46 Action Measure, and the one-year sell-through perio d is necessary to expeditiously achieve GHG emission reductions.

We believe that the vast majority of products manuf actured prior to

the effective date of the emission limit will clear shelves within a year such that a one-year sell-through is adequate.

Sealant or Caulking Compound

A-67. Comment : We can support the removal of “threaded pipe sealan ts and gasket makers” from the “Sealant or Caulking Compou nd” definition. As originally written this category would have banned an aerosol form of one of our products. We appreciate the staff review of this issue and their willingness to modify the regulation. [FSC; NAA-1; CSPA-1]

Agency Response : The Board approved the staff’s proposal for Sealant or Caulking Compound products with the modi fications suggested at the hearing.

A-68. Comment : We support the VOC limit of 1.5% for Non-chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound effective in 12/31/10 for water based

materials. This limit is needed to ensure that th ese types of products remain effective in all types of interior and exter ior use. The 1.5% will provide an allowance for the minor VOCs brought in by the many components going into the products. [Henkel]

Agency Response : The Board approved staff’s proposal related to the limit for Non-chemically Curing Sealant or C aulking Compound products.

A-69. Comment : We request that paintable exterior sealants with im mediate water resistance based on synthetic rubber and hydr ocarbon resin also to be set at 3% just like the reactive products they d irectly compete against. [Henkel]

A-70. Comment : In the past construction companies I currently workwith were able to use a sealant containing a petroleum s olvent. This sealant allows them to complete their outdoor work in all 1 2 months of the year, whether wet or dry or damp. Now, we are told that we can't buy this type

of sealant. That California has outlawed them. Wh y? We all need to work in the winter. Rubber sealants with a petrole um solvent are the best all season sealants for outdoor work. [DARCO; JRW]

A-71. Comment : It was brought to my attention that the State of Ca lifornia is considering banning the use of rubber sealants that contain petroleum solvents. We are a Rain Gutter company that works with painted47 materials in all seasons of the year. We have trie d many different sealants and have found that the sealants you are c onsidering to be the most effective as the others just will not stick to surfaces that are not completely dry. Please do not pass such a regulati on for Contractors until a time when a proven viable alternative is develope d. [YG]

Agency Response to Comments A-69 through A-71 : Staff’s proposal does not ban a product type, but rather li mits the amount of VOC solvent the products can contain. Staff bel ieves that proposed VOC standards for non-aerosol Non-Chemical ly Curing and Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound products will accommodate a wide range of applications, incl uding work performed by professional contractors. Of the 296 products reported in the 2003 Survey that comply with the pr oposed VOC limits many products claim to perform well under ex treme weather conditions and can be applied to a varied range of substrates both indoors and outdoors. Product labels for complying products state that the products are effective for various types o f construction, remodeling and maintenance purposes of houses and o ther structures, providing protection against the weathe r and other elements. A number of these complying products are paintable and have high flexibility. Thus the needs of contracto rs and do-ityourself consumers can be met. Staff has worked wi th a number of major companies and associations who have provided input and supported the development of the proposed limits.

A-72. Comment : In regards to the new limit and revised labeling re quirements for Sealant or Caulking Compound, we recommend that ARB clarify that the new labeling requirements become effective on t he same date as the new VOC limit. [CSPA-1]

Agency Response : Staff agrees. At the hearing, staff proposed, and the Board approved, a modification to the Admin istrative Requirements section [section 94512(d)] of the regu lation to specify the effective date of the labeling requirement for Sealant or Caulking Compound products.

Windshield Water Repellant

A-73. Comment : CSPA continues to believe that the ARB should provi de

additional time for manufacturers to reformulate Wi ndshield Water Repellent Products. Specifically, CSPA believes th at a 2012 effective date for the new VOC limit for this product categor y would provide a more reasonable and achievable schedule. [CSPA-1]48 Agency Response : Staff disagrees that a 2012 effective date is necessary for this category. The technology is ava ilable for these products to be successfully reformulated by the pro posed effective date of December 31, 2010. We also note that in di scussions with stakeholders, information was provided that indicat ed that the proposed limit for Windshield Water Repellent could be met by

2010.



### 3. Other Comments

A-74. Comment : Staff has already included language to regulate met hylene chloride from several consumer products. But we wa nt to encourage you to direct staff to also include paint strippers in this group of consumer products. According to these agencies' own surveys and research, methylene chloride tonnage in paint strippers as of 2006 was approximately 1.9 tpd. When you multiply it by 365 , that gives you approximately 693 tons of methylene chloride a year . In addition to that,

we have included information about research availab le for alternatives for methylene chloride in paint strippers. [CCA-1]

Agency Response : This comment is not directed at the proposed amendments. However, staff is committed to return to the Board as soon as possible to propose additional requirements for these products if it is found to be commercially and tech nologically

feasible.

A-75. Comment : Finally, I want to mention one specific concern tha t relates to an approach that ARB's using and a potential hazard with it and the reactivity approach to regulating consumer products

. There's the potential for companies to bring forward alternatives that ar e in fact more toxic -- maybe lower VOC but more toxic than the product tha t's on the market today. We do not want to change out one problemati c product with another problematic product. [CCA-2]

Agency Response : Staff did not propose reactivity-based standards for the products that are the subject of this rulemaking.

A-76. Comment : We're especially appreciative of the toxic reductio ns. Chlorinated solvents are nasty compounds, and we sh ould move away from them everywhere in our society as quickly as p ossible. [CCA-2]

A-77. Comment : I encourage you to strongly reduce the harmful to xics found in cleaning and other consumer products. By regula ting and reducing these chemicals from consumer products, the State o f California will set another precedent in protecting the health of famil ies and workers. [CCAltr]49

A-78. Comment : And we also want to note that we certainly support the prohibition of toxics in these consumer product cat egories. I think that's a very important strategy for you to pursue. [ALA]

Agency Response to Comments A-76 through A-78 : The Board approved staff’s proposal to prohibit the use of to xic air contaminant chlorinated solvents in the categories of Carpet/Up holstery Cleaner, Fabric Protectant, Multi-Purpose Lubricant, Penetra nt, Pressurized Gas Duster, Sealant or Caulking Compound, and Spot Remover.

A-79. Comment : I appreciate the "can do" attitude of the industry reps that have testified here today. But I want to remind th e Board that not all the companies out there that are producing these produc ts that are high polluting have that attitude. And I hope to the ex tent that the staff and the Board are going to grant flexibility now or in the future, that you're paying attention to who's really trying and the companies and industries that really aren't trying. [CCA-2]

Agency Response : Comment noted. However, to comply with the VOC limits, manufacturers and marketers have al ways had the flexibility of choosing any reformulation pathway f or their affected consumer products, as long as they do not exceed th e VOC limit or include prohibited substances.

A-80. Comment : We urge your Board to substantially accelerate y our emission reduction programs to achieve healthful air for the 16 million residents of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. I n particular, we recommend that your Board direct staff to further c onsider future reductions from General Purpose Cleaners, General P urpose Degreasers, Glass Cleaners (including industrial and institutio nal (I&I) products) with a VOC limit of one percent by weight, and Multi-Purpo se Solvent and Paint Lacquer Thinners with a VOC limit of three percent by weight, as included in your original proposal for the current rule amen dment. We request that these categories be included in CARB’s proposed sta tewide regulation amendment scheduled for November 2008 and request t hat the Board so direct the staff with the attached resolution langu age. [SCAQMD-1, SCAQMD-2]

Agency Response : Board considered but rejected the suggested language for inclusion in Resolution 08-30. Howeve r, staff did commit to return to the Board with regulatory strat egies for those categories.50

A-81. Comment : I also urge you to include additional VOC reducti ons from some of the worst culprits – multipurpose cleaners, degreasers and glass removers. [CCAltr]

A-82. Comment : Direct staff today to include industrial and janito rial cleaning products so that they can establish a real timeline to come back with a VOC limit for those products. [CCA-1]

A-83. Comment : We ask that you move quickly to regulate some other categories faster than actually your staff has prop osed and is staff

recommendations.

The first category is the general purpose cleaners, general purpose degreasers, and glass cleaners, where we would prop ose 1 percent by weight. And that would achieve almost two tons of reduction in South Coast. And the second is multipurpose paint and la cquer thinners that would be no more than 3 percent by weight. And tha t would achieve roughly an additional six tons of reduction in Sout h Coast. So we could make up the deficit that we need by 2014 in rapid f ashion.

We've actually provided your staff with an extensiv e amount of technical information regarding the feasibility of these limi ts. We did so last December. Your staff actually proposed the lacquer thinner limits in its original proposal and then pulled it back. The pro ducts are available. They're on the market. We've looked at them. They 're compliant. And we would urge you to modify the proposed resolution to include a request of the staff to at least bring to you so that we can h ave a public debate this coming November about the feasibility of these limi ts. We deserve the opportunity to appear before you in November and to be heard on this issue. [SCAQMD-2]

A-84. Comment : We strongly encourage you to include in the languag e to regulate emissions from institutional and janitoria l cleaning products. If the Board includes this language, which was not inc luded in the last draft, there would be an additional reduction of 4.5 tpd o f VOC emissions, an increase of almost 100 percent from the original pr oposal. While we at SEIU Local 1877 strive to include green cleaning pr oducts in our contract language, we need the state's help in regulating th e use of these extremely toxic cleaning products. [SEIU-1]

A-85. Comment : What I ask is that this issue of cleaning products come up before you in November, that you commit today to br inging this item up at your November hearing. [SEIU-2]

A-86. Comment : We want to push you to fairly quickly address some of those other products including cleaners and degreasers, p aint and lacquer51 thinners, and paint strippers. We hope that you'll be able to put those on the agenda for later this year. [Sierra]

A-87. Comment : Fast track the additional categories that have been delayed to help us meet our smog reduction and toxics reduc tion goals and to get the greatest public health benefit we can as quickl y as possible. We appreciate the regulation that the staff is bringin g forward today. And that's an important step forward. But we are conce rned that the CARB Board should commit to bringing these additional ca tegories that have been delayed, like paint and lacquer thinners, to t he Board as quickly as possible. We would also prefer the November time f rame for bringing the paint and lacquer thinner category forward. [ALA]

Agency Response to Comments A-81 through A-87 : This rulemaking does not address cleaning products, pain t and lacquer thinners or paint strippers. Therefore, these comm ents are not directed at the proposed amendments. However, for completeness, staff responds as follows: staff is committed to return as soon as possible to the Board to propose regulatory strategies for these products if the requirements a re found to be commercially and technologically feasible.

A-88. Comment : ARB has had some significant success in regulating consumer products, and that that has been not only important in reducing the emissions that form smog but also in terms of d riving industry to

innovate. I think that as Cal/EPA looks more broad ly at how to green our chemistry, we've actually suggested that there's a lot to be learned from ARB's experience. Although there are also some lim itations in your statutory authority, so we need to do some broadeni ng there. We would actually like to see multimedia assessments of curr ent products and of proposed alternatives that would account for not on ly emissions into air but releases to water, impacts on worker health and safety, and hazardous and solid wastes that are generated as we ll as greenhouse gas emissions. Under your current statutory authority you can't do that. [Sierra]

Agency Response : Comment noted.

A-89. Comment : Most of the potential emission reductions have been put off

till November or later from this round of consumer products regulation. And some of our comments are -- and to your staff a nd to the Board

members have been focused on that. Five tons is im portant. It's significant. But we want to get the other 30 that you have the potential to get in the near term. The staff has told us that t hey need to do survey work in work groups. Fair enough. But we hope the Board will strongly encourage the staff to do those as quickly as possi ble and not dillydally, if52 you will, not delay regulating this sector because some industry wants to do a work group for two or three years. I mean thi s is a very important sector. And if you look at your own website and th e projections for emissions in 2010 and 2020, it's very obvious. The numbers are there showing how important it is to regulate this sector better than we have to date. [CCA-2]

Agency Response : Comment noted.



### B. 15-DAY COMMENTS

1. General Comments

B-1. Comment : CSPA supports the Modified Text for the Proposed Amendments released on August 12, 2008.

Agency Response : Comment noted.

B-2. Comment : CSPA Supports the ARB Decision to Delete the Propos ed

Definition for the Term “Not for Retail Sale.” The apparent intent of the proposed definition of the term “Not for Retail Sal e” was to clarify (but not change) the use of this term in the definitions for at least two product categories.”

CSPA believes that it is critically important for A RB to clearly identify which products are subject to California’s very str ingent VOC limits. Precise and unambiguous regulatory provisions benef it both ARB and the regulated entities. Thus, CSPA supports the ARB’s decision to withdraw the original proposed definition. In written comme nts CSPA filed on June 23, the Association presents pragmatic recomme ndations for producing clear demarcations for the products that ARB considers to be subject to the applicable VOC limits. CSPA commits to continue working cooperatively with ARB staff and the other stakehol ders to develop a regulatory language that removes any potential ambi guity as to whether the ARB’s regulatory provisions apply to specific p roducts.

Agency Response : Comment noted. At the hearing, the Board approved the modification to the delete the definit ion of “Not For

Retail Sale.”

B-3. Comment : CSPA Supports ARB’s Action to Clarify the Definitio n of the

Term “Floor Maintenance Product.”

The modification to the definition for this product category removes any potential ambiguity as to applicable regulatory lim its. During the past 2053 years, ARB staff has done a commendable job develop ing a comprehensive set of precise definitions to ensure that no product is inadvertently subject to more than one VOC limit or more than one set of regulations. In this case, the modification makes it unambiguously clear that the Floor Maintenance Product category is subj ect to provisions of the Consumer Products Regulation. CSPA strongly believ es that this type of clarity is necessary for companies to fully comply with ARB’s comprehensive regulatory requirements.

Agency Response : Comment noted. At the hearing, the Board approved the modification to clarify that the “Floo r Maintenance Product” category does not include architectural co atings products.

B-4. Comment : CSPA Supports ARB’s Action Clarifying the Applicabi lity of the Regulatory Limit for the “Motor Vehicle Wash” P roduct Category.

The modification to the Motor Vehicle Wash Product category in the Table of Standards unambiguously conveys ARB’s intent tha t the stringent new VOC limit applies only to the nonaerosol form of th is particular product category. CSPA strongly believes that this modific ation is both reasonable and necessary; accordingly, we support the ARB’s ac tion on this issue.

CSPA thoroughly reviewed the Board Resolution and M odified Text issued subsequent to the June 26th Board Hearing and belie ves that it is

consistent with the Board instructions to staff at the Hearing. Therefore, CSPA supports all of the modifications released for 15-day public comment. CSPA appreciates the opportunity to comme nt on these important proposed regulatory changes to the Califo rnia Consumer Products Regulation. CSPA commends the ARB staff’s exemplary efforts to ensure that all interested parties had an opport unity to participate in this open and transparent public effort to develop amend ments to California’s very comprehensive Consumer Products Regulation. [C SPA-4]

Agency Response : Comment noted. At the hearing, the Board approved the modification to clarify that the limit for Motor Vehicle Wash applies only to non-aerosol products.



### 2. Comments on Sealant or Caulking Compound Produ cts

B-5. Comment : I was told recently that the caulking that I use to seal up my

customers' homes could be outlawed. We are a sidin g and window contractor who use Quad and NPC sealant for sealing around windows, doors, corners, etc. I use these petroleum based r ubber sealants because

it adheres the best in moist weather. Its flexibil ity and ability to adhere during all weather conditions has been the best for our business. We54 have tried using other sealant's in the past and ha ve had service claims where caulking has cracked or deteriorated within a few years.

When doing projects such as fiber cement, caulking is essential to sealing up around windows and without the best sealant in t he market, we would be doing homeowners a disservice. Please do not ou tlaw these sealants or at least provide a contractor's exception! Than ks! [3GI]

B-6. Comment : Roof leaks and window leaks are nasty problems. The area is usually wet and silicon sealants or latex sealan ts simply do not work. Only a rubber sealant with a petroleum solvent allo ws repairs to damp areas. I heard that California plans to ban all pe troleum solvents in sealants to protect household consumers.

Trained contractors need an exemption from this rul e that will allow them to select a rubber sealant having a petroleum solve nt that will fix the leaking problems permanently for the consumer. [ABP ]

B-7. Comment : I have sold building products for the last 25 years . The last 4 years I have immersed myself in "Moisture Managemen t" in construction,

both new and remodel. I have seen sealant failures due to substandard

sealants. I have also dealt with contractor frustr ation when a silicone sealant just won't stick to a damp surface, nor cou ld they paint over it. Professional sealants, those that include petroleum solvents, have proven to be the only year-round sealant contractors can u se with confidence. I

have seen the destruction leaks have caused around windows, on roofs and behind siding. Many homes have become uninhabi table due to these

leaks and either the new homeowner is stuck with a home they can't resell or the builder is forced to spend thousands of doll ars to correct the problem. California MUST allow contractors to be e xempt from this ruling. Quality construction is a must and professional sea lants are insurance they are doing everything possible to prevent mold issues and serious water damage. Please consider these issues and red uce all of the litigation that will result by restricting contract ors on the sealants they can use and the seasons they can work. [DARCOE-2]

B-8. Comment : I have heard that the caulking that most of the sid ing, window and Patio Cover contractors are using at thi s time are going to be taken off the market (California only). We current ly use petroleum based

rubber sealants because it adheres best in wet weat her or under damp

conditions. If we are limited to silicone-based se alants, only, then the call back rate to product failure will skyrocket. We be lieve in giving our customers the best quality installation possible an d we can not do that with current silicone product that are on the marke t today.55 Please DO NOT OUTLAW THESE SEALANTS BUT IF YOU DO P LEASE MAKE IT AN EXCEPTION FOR "CONTRACTORS USE ONLY." [V DI]

Agency Response to Comments B-5 through B-8 : These

comments are not directed at the modifications made by the August 12, 2008 Notice of Public Availability of Mo dified Text. However, for completeness, staff incorporates the A gency Response to comments A-69 through A-71 herein. The proposal approved by the Board will accommodate a wide range of applications including the work performed by profes sional

contractors under various environmental conditions.