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. 08-6-5 
2 

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 Compound" 

 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 31 

 d. Floor Maintenance Product 35 
3 

 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 53 

 
4 

I. 

INTRODUCTION

On June 26, 2008, the Air Resources Board (the "Board" or "ARB") conducted a 

public hearing to consider amendments to the California Consumer Products 

Regulation, sections 94507-94517, title 17, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR). An Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking (ISOR or staff 

report) was prepared and made available to the public on May 9, 2008. The 

ISOR is incorporated by reference herein. This Final Statement of Reasons for 

Rulemaking (FSOR) updates the ISOR by identifying and explaining the 

modifications that were made to the original proposal. The FSOR also 

summarizes the written and oral comments received during 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 language. All of the 

modifications to the original proposal are described in Section II of this FSOR 

entitled "Modifications Made to the Original Proposal." In accordance with 

Government Code section 11346.8(c), Resolution 08-30 directed the Executive 

Officer to adopt the modified regulations after making 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 modifications clearly indicated, were 

mailed on August 12, 2008, to each of the individuals 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, 2008, pursuant to 

Government Code section 11346.8. The Executive Officer then determined that 

no additional changes should be made to the regulations, and subsequently 

issued an Executive Order, by which the modified Consumer Products 

Regulation was adopted. 

As defined in Government Code section 11345.5(a)(6), the Board has 

determined that this regulatory action will not create costs or savings to any State 

agency, nor affect federal funding to the State. The Board has also determined 

that this regulatory action will not create costs or 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, the ARB staff considered the 
5 

potential economic impacts on California business enterprises and individuals. A 

detailed discussion of these impacts is included in the ISOR. The adopted 

regulations are considered "major regulations" within the meaning of Health and 

Safety Code section 57005 (enacted by Senate Bill 1082: Stats.1993, ch. 418), 

because the regulations will have an economic impact on the State's business 

enterprises in an amount of approximately $26 million dollars per year. During 

the 45-day and 15-day comment periods, no alternatives or combination of 

alternatives were submitted to the ARB which would be equally effective as the 

proposed regulations (i.e., no alternatives, or combination or alternatives, were 

submitted which would achieve at least the equivalent level of environmental 

protection within the same time frame as the proposed regulations.) 

The Board has determined that no reasonable alternative considered by the 

agency or that has otherwise been identified and brought 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 as 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 described below. 

A. Section 94508. Definitions: 

Section 94508(a)(58) The definition of "Floor Maintenance Product" was 

modified to clarify the types of products subject to 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 subject to the VOC standard. 

Section 94508(a)(131) The definition of "Sealant or Caulking 

Compound" was modified to clarify the types of products 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 applicable only to “nonaerosol” product forms. 

C. Section 94512. Administrative Requirements: 

 

Section 94512(d)(1) A modification was made to the additional labeling 

requirements to specify the effective dates for the “Sealant or Caulking 

Compound (non-aerosol)” category. 

D. Miscellaneous: Several minor modifications, such as renumbering 

subsections and correcting dates, were also made throughout the 

regulatory language. 

 
7 

III. 

CORRECTIONS TO THE REFERENCES LISTED IN THE INITIAL STATEMENT 

OF REASONS

Staff has identified a number of typographical errors 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 corrections. 

1. The following two references cited in the reference list on pages 23 and 24 in 

the Executive Summary were corrected as follows: 

 

 In the reference cited for (CA DOF, 2007), “444,000” 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 correct reference should be as 

follows: 

California Department of Finance. Report: State Adds 470,000 in 2006: 2007 

Population Nears 37.7 Million. May 1, 2007. 

 The reference for (Dupont & Falcon, 2004) was corrected for grammatical and 

typographical errors. To improve clarity and consistency, the author’s 

company affiliations were added. The correct reference should be as follows: 

DuPont Company in association with Falcon Safety Products. 

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 reference list on page 46 was 

corrected for typographical errors, (see correction 1). 

3. The following three references cited in the reference 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. Volume “925” is hereby 

changed to Volume “295.” This is a typographical error. The correct 

reference should be as follows: 

Dominici, F., Peng, R.D., Bell, M.L., Pham, L., McDermott, A., Zeger, S.L., 

Samet, J.M. Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital 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 erroneously 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., Margolis, 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 reference 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 typographical error. The correct 

reference should be as follows: 

 Gilliland, F.D., Berhand, K., Rappaport, E.B., Thomas, D.C., Avol, E., 

Gauderman, W.J., London, S.J., Margolis, H.G., McConnell, R., Islam, K.T., 

and Peters, J.M. The Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on School Absenteeism 

Due to Respiratory Illnesses. 2001. Epidemiology. Volume 12. Number 1: 43-

54. 

 The reference cited for (Krewski et al., 2000) was corrected for typographical 

errors in spelling and punctuation. The correct reference 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 the American Cancer 

Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. 2000. Research 

Report of the Health Effects Institute. 

5. The following two references cited in the reference 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 was 
9 

published. This is a typographical error. The correct publication is New 

England Journal of Medicine. The correct reference should be as follows: 

Miller, K.A., Siscovick, D.S., Sheppard, L., Shepherd, 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 Mortality and Long-Term 

Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution: Epidemiological 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 website was printed. This is a 

typographical error. The correct date is May 8, 2008. 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 corrected 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 was omitted from the 

reference list on page 177. The omitted citation was added: 

 

 Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

November, 2004. 

The reference for (ARB, 1989c) was erroneously cited in the reference list on 

page 178. The reference was not relied upon as supporting 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 Proposed Architectural 

Coatings Suggested Control Measure - Staff Report. April 20, 1989. 

9. The following two references cited in the reference 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 correct date is 1994. The correct 

reference should be as follows: 

Bowman, F. M., Pilinis, C. and Seinfeld, J. H. Ozone and Aerosol Productivity 

of Reactive Organics. 1994. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 29: 579 589. 

 The reference for (Dupont & Falcon, 2004) was corrected for typographical 

and grammatical errors, (see correction 1). 
11 

IV. 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES

The Board received numerous written and oral comments 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 or recommendation made 

regarding the proposal with an explanation of how the proposed action has been 

changed to accommodate the objection or recommendation, 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, 2008 
12 

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 & Staff 

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 Specialist 

 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 Justice 

 Eden Flynn, Coordinator 

Southern California Coalition for Occupational Safety 

& Health (SoCalCOSH) 
13 

 Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director 

 Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles 

 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 Environmental 

Health 

 Central Valley Health Policy Institute 

 Bradley Angel, Executive Director 

 Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice 

 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, 2008 
14 

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, 2008 
15 

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, 2008 
16 

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 and 

Detergent Association) 

Oral testimony: June 26, 2008 

SEIU-1 Solange Echeverria 

 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1877 

Oral testimony: June 26, 2008 

SEIU-2 Laura Rico 

 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 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, 2008 
17 

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 in 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 Giuon 
18 

 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 Lewis 
19 

 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 Thompson 
20 

Comments Received During the15-day Public Comment Period

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, 2008 
21 

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 that 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 industry folks. 

[CRC] 

A-4. Comment: I urge you to adopt the strongest possible regulation 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 California 

Air Resources Board to adopt tougher regulations on consumer products. 

[CCAltr] 

A-8. Comment: We're supportive overall of the staff proposal. [CCA-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 modifications. 

A-10. Comment: The new VOC limits and proposed provisions in the ARB 

staff proposal present a very serious and costly formulating and marketing 

challenge. The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) has 

agreed to meet the technical challenges necessary to 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 compound (VOC) 

limits is achievable in the timeframes provided. 
22 

A-11. Comment: We are very pleased that staff included language redefining 

dilutable products (pg. ES-13) in spray bottles. Dilutable products bottled 

in containers that appear to be for immediate use should be required to 

reduce their VOC limits. 

We want to use this opportunity to encourage CARB to also pay attention 

to other products designed to be diluted. It is very important that we 

assume that not all consumers follow diluting instructions to the letter. 

Therefore, in an effort to continue identifying emissions 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 sold in pump spray 

bottles that are designed to be diluted and are subject to the VOC 

limit specified in section 94509(a). There is no reason to account 

for other consumer products that are to be diluted because the 

adopted language applies to the universe of consumer 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. Many consumer 

products and their ingredients contribute directly and indirectly to the GHG 

emissions. We want to encourage this agency to think about the possibility 

of addressing those products and or their ingredients and make California 

the first State that officially takes steps to reduce 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 Pressurized Gas 

Duster products. 

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

benefits to the ozone associated with a reduction in volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), we believe that California can more effectively and 

efficiently meet CARB’s emission reduction targets by focusing on VOC 

reactivity instead of percentage mass-based limitation. [The commenter 

provides additional information to support their contention that reactivitybased standards are appropriate from a technical standpoint 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 effective and 
23 

efficient emission reduction, staff routinely evaluates 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-based approach 

provided a more feasible regulatory strategy. Therefore, the massbased approach was proposed by staff and approved by the Board. 

We agree that reactivity-based standards are appropriate in some 

instances. As noted by the commenter, ARB has already adopted 

an aerosol coatings regulation that limits the reactivity rather than 

the mass of the VOCs used. 

A-14. Comment: CSPA fully supports the proposed addition of ethoxynonafluorobutane (HFE 7200) to the list of compounds excluded from the 

definition of “Volatile Organic Compound.” This chemical is needed for 

use in some of the products currently subject to VOC limits. As we noted 

in our comments submitted on November 30, 2007, on the Draft ARB Staff 

Report on “Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected Halogenated 

Compounds,” CSPA also believes that several other of the halogenated 

solvents that have petitioned for exemption as negligibly 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-butyl 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 not intend to 

propose VOC exemptions for the other halogenated compounds 

that are the subject of the report titled “Environmental Impact 

Assessment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals.” As described in 

the report, staff found that exempting any of the other halogenated 

compounds could result in adverse environmental impacts. 

Although not part of this rulemaking, staff is currently evaluating 

whether an exemption for TBAC is appropriate. 

A-15. Comment: CARB and OEHHA’s objection in 2001 was that there was 

insufficient toxicological information data to properly assess the potential 

risk of exempting tert-butyl acetate (TBAC). Nonetheless, CARB staff 

asked OEHHA to estimate a theoretical cancer risk for humans based on 

chronic data for its TBA metabolite. The OEHHA analysis was published 

in 2004 and its conclusions were sharply criticized by leading experts in 

carcinogenicity. To date, the OEHHA analysis has not been validated by 

the Carcinogen Identification Committee and neither tert-butyl alcohol 

(TBA), nor TBAC, has been listed as a potential carcinogen in California or 
24 

elsewhere. In 2007, we provided OEHHA and CARB with the results of 

additional toxicology studies and expert opinions that confirm that TBAC 

and TBA are not genotoxic and are unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans. 

These new studies have still not been reviewed by OEHHA. 

CARB staff has apparently not done what it said it would do, which is to 

evaluate TBAC use in consumer product categories likely to use it. These 

product categories include adhesives, caulks, and sealants, automotive 

wax/polish/sealant/glaze, brake, carburetor, and air intake cleaners, 

engine degreasers, paint strippers and graffiti removers, silicone based 

lubricants, and aerosol undercoatings. TBAC is unlikely to be used in 

household or personal care products, with the possible exception of nail 

polish and removers, because of its strong odor and flammability. It is 

unfortunate that CARB staff continues to focus on OEHHA’s speculative 

concerns instead of the significant and tangible health and environmental 

benefits that will result when TBAC is exempted. OEHHA’s concerns 

about TBAC’s potential chronic toxicity are also of questionable relevance 

to non-occupational use of consumer products. There 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 the 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 responds as follows: 

Staff is currently evaluating whether a VOC exemption for TBAC is 

appropriate within the Consumer Products Regulation. 

A-16. Comment: Please note on page 4 of regulation, the use of the name 

American Society for Testing and Materials is incorrect. Since 2001, the 

official name of our standards organization has been “ASTM International” 

and should be referenced accordingly. 

 Any information that is referenced from these documents should be 

updated accordingly in order to reflect the most current 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 version. [ASTM] 

Agency Response: As to changing the definition for ‘ASTM’ in 

section 94508(a), staff agrees and will propose a modification to the 

definition in a subsequent rulemaking. As for the references to the 

ASTM standards, staff references the most recent standards we 

have been able to review, and determine that those methods are 

appropriate for our work. Because ASTM International frequently 

changes their standards, it is not practical, or necessary, for ARB to 
25 

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 regulation is 

enforced it is necessary to date the ASTM method used. The 

Office of Administrative Law also requires that a specific 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 define 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 the proposed 

definition. Staff determined it may be more appropriate 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 potential 

ambiguity as to whether the ARB’s regulatory provisions apply to specific 

products would be to clarify the definitions for these 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, including automotive or 

miscellaneous metallic parts. “General Purpose Degreaser” does 

not include “Engine Degreaser," “General Purpose Cleaner," 

“Adhesive Remover," “Electronic Cleaner,” “Electrical Cleaner,” 

“Energized Electrical Cleaner,” “Metal Polish/Cleanser," products 

used exclusively in “solvent cleaning tanks or related equipment,” 

or products that are sold exclusively (directly and/or by 

distributors) for use in establishments which manufacture or 

construct goods or commodities; and labeled for manufacturer 

use only. “Solvent cleaning tanks or related equipment” includes, 

but is not limited to, cold cleaners, vapor degreasers, conveyorized 

degreasers, film cleaning machines, or products designed to clean 

miscellaneous metallic parts by immersion in a container. 

“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 rusted or 
26 

immovable parts or mechanisms. “Lubricant” does not 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 products 

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 manufacture 

or construct goods or commodities, and labeled for 

manufacturer use only. “Lubricant” includes products sold in 

retail outlets or wholesale locations to non-manufacturing 

consumers. 

These changes would provide a very clear demarcation between what 

products are subject to this Consumer Product Regulation and we urge 

ARB to adopt this approach to making this important clarification. 

In addition, we believe that ARB should consider making 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 include Institutional Products” 

or “Institutional and Industrial Products.” This could be accomplished by 

revising the definition for Institutional Products to read as follows: 

“Institutional Product” or “Industrial and Institutional (I&I) Product” 

means a consumer product that is designed for use in the 

maintenance or operation of an establishment that: (A) 

manufactures, transports, or sells goods or commodities, or 

provides services for profit; or (B) is engaged in the nonprofit 

promotion of a particular public, educational, or charitable cause. 

“Establishments” include, but are not limited to, government 

agencies, factories, schools, hospitals, sanitariums, 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 distributors) for use in 

establishments which manufacture or construct goods or 

commodities, and labeled for manufacturer use only. 

“Institutional Product” includes products sold in retail outlets 

or wholesale locations to non-manufacturing consumers.

In conclusion, CSPA believes that these narrowly-tailored revisions will 

eliminate any potential ambiguity as to the applicability of the ARB’s 

regulatory standards. Moreover, the revisions will promote efforts by the 

ARB Staff to restrict the sale of unregulated products to consumers. 

[CSPA-1] 
27 

Agency Response: Staff disagrees with the comment. Staff 

believes the current product category definitions are sufficiently 

clear. In addition, staff believes the proposed language 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. Each 

rulemaking has been a little bit more difficult than the last in many aspects. 

But we are meeting the -- or being able to commit to meet these new 

challenges because of the excellent work of your staff 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 more difficult and 

less cost effective in our contributions towards clean air. According to 

staff estimates, this rulemaking will cost our industry $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 statewide. 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 acknowledged in the staff 

reports we need to find new innovative reduction strategies 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 and more difficult. 

The setting of new standards across broad categories is going to 

eventually lead to infeasible limits if it hasn't done 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 reductions are five times 

more effective in ozone reductions per weight than VOC reductions. The 

$260 million that we're pledging to invest today probably could be used 

elsewhere to much better effect, with much higher contributions 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 suggests that it 

might be better to regulate nitrogen oxide (NOx) or other pollutants 

instead of VOCs. We do not agree. VOC emissions reductions – 

in addition to NOx emission reductions – are still necessary to 

attain federal and state ozone standards as expeditiously as 

possible. 
28 

A-20. Comment: According to your staff’s own estimates, after SIP measures 

are implemented, 2010 VOC emissions from consumer products will be 

approximately 220 to 235 tons per day (tpd). Additionally, consumer 

products will be the second largest source category of VOC emissions in 

2010 (tied with trucks and buses), and in 2020 these products will be the 

leading source of VOC emissions. Unfortunately, the current version of 

the Consumer Products Regulation will reduce VOCs by just 1.7 tpd in 

2010, less than one percent of total expected emissions. Yielding to 

industry demands, staff has suggested numerous delays in deadlines 

associated with emission reductions for different consumer 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 rulemaking will 

reduce statewide VOC emissions by 5.8 tpd when fully effective in 

2015. The effective dates are based on the commercial and 

technological feasibility of the limits, not industry 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) alcohol 

astringents and toners is necessary for certain affected individuals and 

groups. [Ghadially-1] 

Agency Response: We agree and believe the proposed limit 

allows a full range of non-OTC products with, and without ethanol, 

to remain available to address all needs. We also note that 

prescription drugs and those products subject to Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) rules are not included in this category. If 

necessary, over-the-counter drug products and prescription 

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 verbally that a 25 percent 

alcohol level would be an acceptable cap in this category. In the course of 

our meetings and in my correspondence, I have stressed my strong 

medical opinion that higher levels of alcohol in products are needed by 

certain affected individuals and groups.” [Ghadially-2] 

Agency Response: Staff acknowledges the comment. 
29 

A-23. Comment: We are very disappointed that staff increased the proposed 

VOC limit [for Astringent/Toner] from 10 percent to 35 percent. We would 

like to see a standardization of this industry. Many manufacturers of nonmedicinal, non-FDA regulated astringent/toners already 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, staff learned that 

a 2:1 part water to alcohol ratio may be necessary for some 

products, designed for use on oily skin, to effectively dissolve 

sebum. 

Therefore, the 35 percent VOC limit is necessary to ensure 

commercial and technological feasibility of this product category. 

See also the Agency Response to comment A-24. 

A-24. Comment: We have come to agreement on virtually all except for one 

small, but important, category, and that's the astringent 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 percent VOC limit. These 

are health benefit products. And the active ingredient 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 prominent California 

dermatologists meet with staff to express their belief 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 money or they don't 

have the health coverage, and they will be disproportionately impacted by 

these products not being available to them through the supermarket or 

drugstore at the levels currently proposed -- or currently produced. And 

as you all know, the acne is a principal problem, physical and 

psychological, for many young people, not just in California. The higher 

VOC level products that are currently produced are needed to address 

severe oily skin. The 35 percent limit is not going to be sufficient. We 

have suggested that at least the Board consider raising 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 clinical study, which staff has 

agreed doesn't exist yet, in order to demonstrate the 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 proposal as it stands in 
30 

the staff report gets you 220 pounds. Forty percent instead of would get 

you approximately – I think staff would agree - half of that, 110 pounds. 

So we're talking about a small amount of pounds, not tons, per day of 

emissions for a health benefit product that we think is necessary, the 

doctors who we've consulted with believe is necessary. We would ask 

you either to adjust the number to 40 or put this over until we can do the 

clinical study that would demonstrate the need. [PCPC; CSPA-1] 

Agency Response: The Agency Response to comments A-21 

and A-23 are incorporated herein. We believe the proposed limit 

maintains efficacy among the variety of products currently available 

and allows for a full range of products with all current 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 for some 

Astringent/Toner products to effectively dissolve sebum on oily 

skin. Based on this information, the proposed 35 percent VOC limit 

is the lowest technologically and commercially feasible VOC limit 

for these products. It should be noted that this rulemaking does not 

affect Astringents/Toners regulated by FDA or prescription 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, effective on 

December 31, 2010. [Clorox] 

Agency Response: The Board approved staff’s proposal of a five 

percent by weight VOC limit for aerosol Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner. 

A-27. Comment: We do not support the limit for Aerosol Carpet/Upholstery 

Cleaner. The current limit is 7%; the proposed limit is 5%. We believe 

that a six percent VOC limit is more clearly technologically and 

commercially feasible for the aerosol Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Category. 

[NAA-1; CSPA-1] 

Agency Response: Staff disagrees with this comment. The 

complying market share data from the 2003 Survey, discussions 

with industry stakeholders, as well as staff’s own research 

demonstrate that a five percent VOC limit is commercially 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 with setting a VOC limit 

for this category, and the possible consequences that this limit could have 

on VOCs and other potential air emissions. Recognizing that the VOCs 

present in these products are essentially all fragrance 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 emissions from these 

products. Further, increased product consumption will 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 category is about 

0.08 grams per sheet, with fragrance as the primary VOC 

ingredient. Of the 26 products reported in the 2003 Survey, only 6 

products would need to be reformulated to comply with staff’s 

proposal of 0.05 grams of VOC per use. These data indicate the 

limit to be commercially and technologically feasible in accordance 

with State law. Therefore, it is appropriate to propose a VOC limit 

for this category. 

Staff does not believe that the proposal would significantly 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 respond to 

reduced fragrance products. SDA’s contention is that the 

reformulated products will be perceived as inadequate because of 

reductions in fragrance, and implies that the consumer will 

essentially begin doubling the number of sheets per load of clothes 

dried. According to information provided by SDA, about 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 unchanged, staff 

believes that it is highly unlikely that customers would want to 

double the cost of clothes drying by using double the 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 these products, 

staff determined that establishing a “VOC percent by weight” limit 

could result in manufacturers using larger size sheets. This could 
32 

diminish emissions reductions and lead to increasing 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 VOC and greenhouse 

gas emissions increases. 

A-29. Comment: We respectfully disagree with ARB’s staff assessment that 

“no data were provided to support this claim” (Staff Report: Initial 

Statement of Reasons (ISOR), pages 83 and 84). Contrary to the staff’s 

report concluding that industry did not provide any data to support our 

position, the SDA and its members made numerous submissions and 

presentations to the ARB on this category (see list of SDA submissions 

and presentations enclosed, as well as documented in ISOR). We 

recommend that ARB staff amend their statement on pages 83 and 84 by 

replacing the noted sentence in the “Response” sections as follows: 

“Industry submitted data based on consumer studies to support the claim, 

but it is the opinion of the staff that the data submitted were insufficient.” 

[SDA-1] 

Agency Response: Staff acknowledges and appreciates SDA 

submissions and presentations related to this category. 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 convey that we 

had not received information that directly supported SDA’s 

expectation that consumer usage would increase with use of 

reformulated products. While staff has no disagreement 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 limits 

and compliance dates for several categories, most of which we believe 

could comply with more health-focused limits and shorter deadlines. The 

VOC limit for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product 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 considered establishing a 

percent by weight VOC standard of 0.1 percent, but has never 

proposed a standard of 0.05 percent. After consulting with industry 

representatives, staff proposed, and at the hearing, the Board 

approved, a 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit including 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 for adverse 

environmental impacts should manufacturers choose to increase 

the size of the sheet substrate to comply with a percent by weight 

limit. The proposed compliance date of December 31, 2010 was 

not changed. The commenter offers no data to support the claim 

that the limit could be “more health-focused” or achievable 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 at 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 emissions 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 the amount of 

VOC, mainly fragrance, used in the formulation of dryer-added 

fabric softener products. The estimated VOC emission reduction 

for this category is approximately 0.21 tpd by December 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 argument 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 widely known. [Ray] 

Agency Response: The commenter is incorrect related to 

companies manufacturing Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer 

Product. According to the 2003 Survey, approximately 20 

companies reported dryer-added fabric softener products. Staff 

provided the necessary data for the public to evaluate the proposal 

without compromising manufacturers’ confidential business 

information [see Chapter VI, pages VI-104 and VI-105 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 because 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 issue 
34 

that perhaps consumers at lower VOC emissions will instead use multiple 

sheets instead of single sheets. It was noted within the Statement of 

Reasons that we had not brought forth data. And although 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 single 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 use is occurring. It is our 

concern that that might happen and it would take some 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 which fragrance is being 

addressed. It is an exception to the normal use where 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 different category (fabric 

softener - single use dryer product). [SDA-2] 

Agency Response: Staff disagrees that the regulation is 

premature and incorporates the Agency Response to comment 28 

herein. We do not expect the consumer to be confused 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 research data, 

however the data did not support the contention that more sheets 

would be used. 

As is always done, staff will monitor product sales through periodic 

consumer products surveys, to ensure that unintended 

consequences of establishing the proposed VOC limit do not occur. 

Related to training, during development of the proposal, staff 

worked closely with stakeholders to ensure the proposal was 

understood. Conference calls were held to specifically explain the 

proposal to affected stakeholders and answer questions. 

Fragrance is the primary ingredient that will be reduced to comply 

with the 0.05 grams VOC per use limit. The 0.05 grams of VOC per 

use limit provides emission reductions equivalent to setting a 

2.6 percent by weight limit including fragrance (or a 0.6 percent by 

weight limit with application of the existing 2 percent fragrance 

exemption in section 94510(c) of the Consumer Products 

Regulation). However, because the proposed limit already includes 
35 

an allowance for up to 2 percent of fragrance, there 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 exemption does not 

apply to Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product. The VOC 

limit and modification to the fragrance exemption will become 

effective December 31, 2010, which should provide sufficient time 

for ARB staff to inform and educate manufacturers affected by this 

regulation, if needed. 

Floor Maintenance Product

A-34. Comment: CSPA urges ARB to incorporate the following narrowly-tailed 

revision to the proposed definition. 

 

Floor Maintenance Product means any product designed or labeled 

to restore, maintain, or enhance a previously applied floor finish. 

“Floor Maintenance Product” includes, but not limited to, products 

that are labeled as Spray Buff products or Floor Maintainers or 

Restorers. “Floor Maintenance Product” does not include floor 

polish products, products designed solely for the purpose of 

cleaning, or products designed specifically for use on marble floors, 

or coatings subject to architectural coatings regulations. 

This revision will make the definition for the newly regulated Maintenance 

Products consistent with the definition for the “Floor Polish or Wax” 

product category. [CSPA-1] 

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

Term “Floor Maintenance Product.” The modification to the definition for 

this product category removes any potential ambiguity 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 Furniture Maintenance 

Product at the hearing. The proposed modifications were approved 

by the Board. 

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

additional time for manufacturers to reformulate Floor Maintenance 

Products. Specifically, CSPA believes that a 2012 effective date for the 

new VOC limit for this product category would provide 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 technology is available 
36 

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 complying market 

share at the proposed limit. This indicates that technology is 

readily available for successful reformulation in this time-frame. 

Glass Cleaner

A-37. Comment: We support the ARB staff’s proposal for aerosol Glass 

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 reduce this product 

category to a 10 percent VOC limit. This reduction will not be easy for our 

company. Our customers expect a high quality product that provides 

strong cleaning and a transparent finished surface. Our company will 

spend resources reducing the VOC content while maintaining 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 which we believe could 

comply with more health-focused limits and shorter deadlines. The VOC 

limit for Glass Cleaner increased from 8% to 10% and 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 effective 

December 31, 2010. However, further technical discussions with 

stakeholders demonstrated that the proposal would not be 

technologically feasible by the proposed effective date. 

Reformulated products, while effective, may have different 

attributes than the consumer is used to for some products. 

Because of this, test marketing prior to bringing the reformulated 

products to market may be required. For these reasons, staff 

believes more time for compliance is warranted. 

In response to this technical information, the proposal in the staff 

report includes a 10 percent by weight VOC limit effective 

December 31, 2012. Staff did not propose further changes 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 applicability of the 

regulatory limit for the “Motor Vehicle Wash” product category. The 

modification to the Motor Vehicle Wash product category in the Table of 

Standards unambiguously conveys ARB’s intent that the stringent new 

VOC limit applies only to the nonaerosol form of this 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 products did not 

exist at the time survey data were collected. Therefore, to insure 

commercial and technological feasibility, for aerosol products, staff 

proposed a modification to clarify that the limit applies only to nonaerosol products. 

The Board approved staff’s proposal with staff’s suggested 

modifications, including the proposal for Motor Vehicle Wash. 

A-41. Comment: The current definition of “Motor Vehicle Wash” will ban our 

aerosol form of the product. [Meguiar’s; Plaze; NAA-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 this product 

category would include wash and wax products, as well 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, CSPA recommends the 

following narrowly-tailored revision to the definition 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, products for use in 
38 

commercial, fleet, hand, and “drive through” car washes; 

commercial truck washing or large vehicle washing stations; vehicle 

dealers and repair shops as well as products intended for 

household consumer use. “Motor Vehicle Wash” does not include 

“Bug and Tar Remover,” “Glass Cleaner,” “Tire or Wheel Cleaner,” 

and products labeled for use exclusively on locomotives or aircraft. 

[CSPA-1] 

Agency Response: The commenter is correct in that the definition 

includes “wash and wax” products as well as products that are not 

diluted prior to use (spray and wipe products). The proposed 

modification is not appropriate, however, because the 2003 Survey 

data demonstrate that products that do not require dilution are able 

to comply with the proposed limit. Staff also agrees that the 

definition would include aerosol products. However, aerosol 

product forms would not be eliminated because the Board 

approved a modification to specify that the VOC limit applies to 

non-aerosol products only. 

Multi-purpose Lubricant

A-43. Comment: We are very disappointed that staff increased VOC limits 

and compliance dates for several categories, most of which we believe 

could comply with more health-focused limits and shorter 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 December 31, 2015. 

Staff did not propose further modifications to the original proposal. 

The commenter provided no data to support what would be 

considered a “more health-focused limit” or why a shorter 

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-Purpose 

Lubricant] by 2013, even though we don't have any solution in hand. We 

don't know how we're going to do that. We believe in 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 when 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 cleaner, it prevents corrosion 

and rust. We need the time to develop and successfully 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 company 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 join 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 Multipurpose Lubricants and Penetrants category. [Radiator-1] 

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

added a new VOC limit of 10% to be met in 2015 - one 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 rulemaking 

clearly reflects that we continue to have very significant concerns about 

the ARB Staff’s proposal to establish a second-tier technology-forcing 

10 percent VOC limit that will take effect on December 31, 2015. Since 

CSPA members are willing to undertake this challenge, 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 achievable in the 

timeframes provided. 

A-49. Comment: CSPA has significant concerns about the proposed second 

tier technology-forcing VOC limit for the Multi-purpose Lubricant products 

category. There is no known nor reasonably foreseeable technology that 

ensures that these products' current multiple functions can be maintained 

while achieving compliance with a proposed second tier limit. Many 

CSPA-member companies have yet to identity feasible product 

technologies to meet these new VOC limits. Nonetheless, CSPA-member 

companies are committing to exercise their best good 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 entails taking necessary 

risk with brand names that have been built over many years. Therefore, 

we request that ARB staff commit to work with us to reevaluate these 
40 

limits in the future if they prove to be technologically 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 analysis, staff 

believes both limits to be feasible in the timeframes 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 another 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/Eliminator] and VOC limit do 

not re-regulate currently regulated products, either 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 limits 

and compliance dates for several categories, most of which we believe 

could comply with more health-focused limits and shorter deadlines. The 

VOC limits for Odor Remover/Eliminator increased from 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 limits 

and compliance dates for several categories listed in this draft. For 

example, when we talk about odor removers, the issue that staff had 

originally intended to set a VOC limit at 0.1 percent 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 compliance 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 correct. During 

the course of our investigations into the non-aerosol product form, 

staff became aware of patents covering these and similar products. 

In order to ensure that manufacturers would not be faced with 

potential patent infringement while reformulating to comply with the 

0.1 percent limit, staff increased the proposed limit to 6 percent by 
41 

weight VOC. A VOC limit of six percent by weight is achievable 

without infringing on any patents of which we are aware. 

Related to the aerosol product, ARB staff’s original proposal was 

not increased as the commenter suggests. In the staff 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, and 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 health-focused” or 

achievable within a shorter timeframe. 

A-53. Comment: In addition to increasing the VOC limits and compliance 

dates for [Odor Remover/Eliminator], CARB staff does not want to 

disclose the total amount of 2008 VOC emissions created by ALL the 

aerosol odor removers/eliminators in the market arguing possible damage 

to “confidentiality.” It is important that CARB staff finds a way to inform the 

public about the amount of emissions created by this industry. 

[CCA, et al.] 

A-54. Comment: Failing to release generic statistics on releases of 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 flavors” and have in it any 

ingredient with a primary purpose of only adding flavor.) Please note: 

any of these products can be deformulated by a laboratory in Florida 

which specializes in deconstructing fragrance formulae for the industry. 

The claim that a patent might be at risk is therefore 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 disclosing 

confidential information. Aggregate emissions data for the aerosol 

Odor Remover/Eliminator category was included in the staff report, 

in such a way as to avoid disclosing confidential company sales 

and product formulation information, while providing general 

information. Contrary to what the commenter suggests, data were 

not withheld due to “patent” considerations. 
42 

Penetrant

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

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

Agency Response: The Board approved staff’s proposal for nonflammable Penetrants, which should ensure that products designed 

for use on energized equipment can continue to be used safely. 

A-56. Comment: Blaster supports the staff proposal on Penetrants of 25% 

VOC limit effective 12/31/2013. [Blaster-1] 

A-57. Comment: I'm here today to support the staff's proposal concerning 

penetrants. Currently the 25 percent VOC limit is technology forcing and 

will take a significant reformulation effort. [Blaster-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 limits 

and compliance dates for several categories, most of which we believe 

could comply with more health-focused limits and shorter deadlines. 

Compliance dates for Penetrants increased from 2012 to 2013. 

Additionally, we feel that technology allows and staff could have set this 

category’s limit at 10%, instead of the 25% VOC limit suggested. 

[CCA, et al.] 

Agency Response: During the development of the regulation, 

staff initially proposed an effective date of December 31, 2012. In 

response, stakeholders provided technical information 

demonstrating the need for an additional year to comply. 

Therefore, the proposal contained in the staff report specifies an 

effective date of December 31, 2013. 

Related to proposing a lower VOC limit, the commenter provided no 

data to support the feasibility of a 10 percent limit. A 25 percent by 

weight VOC limit was proposed because staff determined this was 

the lowest commercially and technologically feasible limit at this 

time. 

Personal Fragrance Product

A-59. Comment: In conversations with the staff, we support the staff proposal 

to change the Personal Fragrance definition. The definition is being 

modified to provide clarity that personal hygiene products are not included 

into this category. This is consistent with the 2001 survey definition for 
43 

personal hygiene products. This change will provide 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 limits 

and compliance dates for several categories, most of which we believe 

could comply with more health-focused limits and shorter deadlines. 

Compliance dates for Personal Fragrance Products increased 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 less fragrance. 

However, staff should increase the scope of products whose grandfather 

clause will be removed and strengthen the VOC limits suggested—

currently at 25%. [CCA, et al.] 

Agency Response: This rulemaking removed exemptions from 

applicable VOC limits (the Grandfather clause), effective 

December 31, 2014, for one subcategory of Personal Fragrance 

Product: products with 20 percent or less fragrance. 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 input from affected 

industry, proposed a December 31, 2014, effective date. This date 

allows responsible parties sufficient time to reformulate, test, and 

market over 400 affected products. Staff’s proposal achieves a 

reduction of VOC emissions of more than 0.4 tpd. Contrary to what 

the commenter suggests, there is no current limit of 25 percent 

VOC for Personal Fragrance Product. 

Staff considered but did not propose changes to exemptions (the 

grandfather clause) for the Personal Fragrance Products with more 

than 20 percent fragrance. This decision recognized 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 were eliminated, 

about 300 products would be affected but the additional VOC 

emissions reduction would be less than 0.1 tpd. 

Pressurized Gas Duster

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

Gas Dusters” that allows for the continued manufacture and use of these 
44 

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 proposal 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 global warming potential 

[limit] for pressurized gas dusters. [CSPA-1; CSPA-3] 

A-63. Comment: We are in support of the new requirements for Pressurized 

Gas Dusters to contain a propellant compound that has 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 requirements for 

Pressurized Gas Duster products. 

A-64. Comment: CSPA supports the definition for “Global Warming Potential 

(GWP)” and “Global Warming Potential Value (GWP Value)” for the 

purpose of limiting the GWP of Pressurized Gas Duster. The choice to 

define GWP Value through descriptive reference to some 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 therefore request that, if 

the specific chemicals and GWP Values cannot be expressly included in 

the regulation, ARB staff issue a compliance advisory 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 Assessment 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 2.15 are easily 

found. The document is available on the internet. The document 

was also made available in the context of the subject rulemaking in 

the manner specified in Government Code section 11364.7 and is 

accessible from ARB’s website. 

These tables are of limited interest to the consumer products 

industry and will only be used by a few manufacturers of 

Pressurized Gas Duster products. Therefore these two tables were 
45 

incorporated by reference because it would be cumbersome and 

unnecessary to add additional volume to an already complex 

regulation. It has been a longstanding and accepted practice for 

ARB to incorporate by reference the test methods used for 

compliance with the regulation. Stakeholders are accustomed to 

this format. Incorporating these tables by reference is an 

analogous situation. 

In addition, prior to the effective date of the limit, staff committed to 

develop and distribute an advisory for manufacturers of Pressurized 

Gas Duster products, and any other interested stakeholder, that 

lists specific chemicals and their applicable GWP Values. 

A-65. Comment: We have concerns regarding some aspects of this definition 

[Pressurized Gas Duster] that may make it not appropriate when and if 

other product categories are subjected to GWP limits. In particular, we 

are concerned about the requirement that the GWP value for all chemicals 

or compounds not assigned a specific value in the United Nations report is 

designated to be equal to the GWP limit for the applicable product 

category. While this may be a sound practical approach for the 

Pressurized Gas Duster category, it could be inappropriate 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 the existing 

regulatory provisions in order to determine whether or not 

amendments are appropriate and necessary. This will be done for 

future rulemakings as requested by the commenter. 

A-66. Comment: Industry urges ARB to consider extending the sell-through 

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 reductions are 

needed to slow climate change, the reductions must occur 

expeditiously. A faster air quality benefit will be realized by limiting 

the sell-through to one year. The California Global Warming 

Solutions Act of 2006, by specifying adoption of Discrete Early 

Action Measures in Health and Safety Code section 38560, shows 

that the California Legislature intended progress toward reducing 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) be made as quickly as possible. The 

reduction of GHGs from consumer products is a Discrete Early 
46 

Action Measure, and the one-year sell-through period is necessary 

to expeditiously achieve GHG emission reductions. 

 

We believe that the vast majority of products manufactured 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 sealants and 

gasket makers” from the “Sealant or Caulking Compound” 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 modifications 

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 these types of products 

remain effective in all types of interior and exterior 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 Caulking 

Compound products. 

A-69. Comment: We request that paintable exterior sealants with immediate 

water resistance based on synthetic rubber and hydrocarbon resin also to 

be set at 3% just like the reactive products they directly compete against. 

[Henkel] 

A-70. Comment: In the past construction companies I currently work with 

were able to use a sealant containing a petroleum solvent. This sealant 

allows them to complete their outdoor work in all 12 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. Why? We all need to 

work in the winter. Rubber sealants with a petroleum 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 California is 

considering banning the use of rubber sealants that contain petroleum 

solvents. We are a Rain Gutter company that works with painted 
47 

materials in all seasons of the year. We have tried many different 

sealants and have found that the sealants you are considering 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 regulation for Contractors until 

a time when a proven viable alternative is developed. [YG] 

Agency Response to Comments A-69 through A-71: Staff’s 

proposal does not ban a product type, but rather limits the amount 

of VOC solvent the products can contain. Staff believes that 

proposed VOC standards for non-aerosol Non-Chemically Curing 

and Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound products 

will accommodate a wide range of applications, including work 

performed by professional contractors. Of the 296 products 

reported in the 2003 Survey that comply with the proposed VOC 

limits many products claim to perform well under extreme 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 of construction, 

remodeling and maintenance purposes of houses and other 

structures, providing protection against the weather and other 

elements. A number of these complying products are paintable and 

have high flexibility. Thus the needs of contractors and do-ityourself consumers can be met. Staff has worked with 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 requirements 

for Sealant or Caulking Compound, we recommend that ARB clarify that 

the new labeling requirements become effective on the 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 Administrative 

Requirements section [section 94512(d)] of the regulation 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 provide 

additional time for manufacturers to reformulate Windshield Water 

Repellent Products. Specifically, CSPA believes that a 2012 effective 

date for the new VOC limit for this product category 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 available for these 

products to be successfully reformulated by the proposed effective 

date of December 31, 2010. We also note that in discussions with 

stakeholders, information was provided that indicated 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 methylene 

chloride from several consumer products. But we want 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 available 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 technologically 

feasible. 

A-75. Comment: Finally, I want to mention one specific concern that 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 are in fact more toxic -- 

maybe lower VOC but more toxic than the product that's on the market 

today. We do not want to change out one problematic 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 reductions. 

Chlorinated solvents are nasty compounds, and we should move away 

from them everywhere in our society as quickly as possible. [CCA-2] 

A-77. Comment: I encourage you to strongly reduce the harmful toxics found 

in cleaning and other consumer products. By regulating and reducing 

these chemicals from consumer products, the State of California will set 

another precedent in protecting the health of families 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 categories. 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 toxic air contaminant 

chlorinated solvents in the categories of Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, 

Fabric Protectant, Multi-Purpose Lubricant, Penetrant, 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 the Board that not all the 

companies out there that are producing these products that are high 

polluting have that attitude. And I hope to the extent 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 always had the 

flexibility of choosing any reformulation pathway for their affected 

consumer products, as long as they do not exceed the VOC limit or 

include prohibited substances. 

A-80. Comment: We urge your Board to substantially accelerate your emission 

reduction programs to achieve healthful air for the 16 million residents of 

the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In particular, we 

recommend that your Board direct staff to further consider future 

reductions from General Purpose Cleaners, General Purpose Degreasers, 

Glass Cleaners (including industrial and institutional (I&I) products) with a 

VOC limit of one percent by weight, and Multi-Purpose Solvent and Paint 

Lacquer Thinners with a VOC limit of three percent by weight, as included 

in your original proposal for the current rule amendment. We request that 

these categories be included in CARB’s proposed statewide regulation 

amendment scheduled for November 2008 and request that the Board so 

direct the staff with the attached resolution language. [SCAQMD-1, 

SCAQMD-2] 

Agency Response: Board considered but rejected the suggested 

language for inclusion in Resolution 08-30. However, staff did 

commit to return to the Board with regulatory strategies for those 

categories. 
50 

A-81. Comment: I also urge you to include additional VOC reductions from 

some of the worst culprits – multipurpose cleaners, degreasers and glass 

removers. [CCAltr] 

A-82. Comment: Direct staff today to include industrial and janitorial 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 proposed and is staff 

recommendations. 

The first category is the general purpose cleaners, general purpose 

degreasers, and glass cleaners, where we would propose 1 percent by 

weight. And that would achieve almost two tons of reduction in South 

Coast. And the second is multipurpose paint and lacquer thinners that 

would be no more than 3 percent by weight. And that would achieve 

roughly an additional six tons of reduction in South Coast. So we could 

make up the deficit that we need by 2014 in rapid fashion. 

We've actually provided your staff with an extensive amount of technical 

information regarding the feasibility of these limits. We did so last 

December. Your staff actually proposed the lacquer thinner limits in its 

original proposal and then pulled it back. The products 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 have a public debate this 

coming November about the feasibility of these limits. 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 language to 

regulate emissions from institutional and janitorial cleaning products. If 

the Board includes this language, which was not included in the last draft, 

there would be an additional reduction of 4.5 tpd of VOC emissions, an 

increase of almost 100 percent from the original proposal. While we at 

SEIU Local 1877 strive to include green cleaning products in our contract 

language, we need the state's help in regulating the 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 bringing 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, paint and lacquer 
51 

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 reduction goals and to get 

the greatest public health benefit we can as quickly as possible. We 

appreciate the regulation that the staff is bringing forward today. And 

that's an important step forward. But we are concerned that the CARB 

Board should commit to bringing these additional categories that have 

been delayed, like paint and lacquer thinners, to the Board as quickly as 

possible. We would also prefer the November time frame 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, paint and lacquer 

thinners or paint strippers. Therefore, these comments 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 are 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 driving industry to 

innovate. I think that as Cal/EPA looks more broadly 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 limitations in your 

statutory authority, so we need to do some broadening there. We would 

actually like to see multimedia assessments of current products and of 

proposed alternatives that would account for not only emissions into air 

but releases to water, impacts on worker health and safety, and 

hazardous and solid wastes that are generated as well 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 and to the Board 

members have been focused on that. Five tons is important. 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 they 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 possible and not dillydally, if 
52 

you will, not delay regulating this sector because some industry wants to 

do a work group for two or three years. I mean this is a very important 

sector. And if you look at your own website and the 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 Proposed 

Definition for the Term “Not for Retail Sale.” The apparent intent of the 

proposed definition of the term “Not for Retail Sale” 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 ARB to clearly identify 

which products are subject to California’s very stringent VOC limits. 

Precise and unambiguous regulatory provisions benefit both ARB and the 

regulated entities. Thus, CSPA supports the ARB’s decision to withdraw 

the original proposed definition. In written comments CSPA filed on 

June 23, the Association presents pragmatic recommendations 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 stakeholders to develop a 

regulatory language that removes any potential ambiguity as to whether 

the ARB’s regulatory provisions apply to specific products. 

Agency Response: Comment noted. At the hearing, the Board 

approved the modification to the delete the definition of “Not For 

Retail Sale.” 

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

Term “Floor Maintenance Product.” 

The modification to the definition for this product category removes any 

potential ambiguity as to applicable regulatory limits. During the past 20 
53 

years, ARB staff has done a commendable job developing 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 subject to provisions of the 

Consumer Products Regulation. CSPA strongly believes 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 “Floor Maintenance 

Product” category does not include architectural coatings products. 

B-4. Comment: CSPA Supports ARB’s Action Clarifying the Applicability of 

the Regulatory Limit for the “Motor Vehicle Wash” Product Category. 

The modification to the Motor Vehicle Wash Product category in the Table 

of Standards unambiguously conveys ARB’s intent that the stringent new 

VOC limit applies only to the nonaerosol form of this particular product 

category. CSPA strongly believes that this modification is both reasonable 

and necessary; accordingly, we support the ARB’s action on this issue. 

CSPA thoroughly reviewed the Board Resolution and Modified Text issued 

subsequent to the June 26th Board Hearing and believes 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 comment on these 

important proposed regulatory changes to the California Consumer 

Products Regulation. CSPA commends the ARB staff’s exemplary efforts 

to ensure that all interested parties had an opportunity to participate in this 

open and transparent public effort to develop amendments to California’s 

very comprehensive Consumer Products Regulation. [CSPA-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 Products 

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 siding and window 

contractor who use Quad and NPC sealant for sealing around windows, 

doors, corners, etc. I use these petroleum based rubber sealants because 

it adheres the best in moist weather. Its flexibility and ability to adhere 

during all weather conditions has been the best for our business. We 
54 

have tried using other sealant's in the past and have 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 the market, we would 

be doing homeowners a disservice. Please do not outlaw these sealants 

or at least provide a contractor's exception! Thanks! [3GI] 

B-6. Comment: Roof leaks and window leaks are nasty problems. The area 

is usually wet and silicon sealants or latex sealants simply do not work. 

Only a rubber sealant with a petroleum solvent allows repairs to damp 

areas. I heard that California plans to ban all petroleum solvents in 

sealants to protect household consumers. 

Trained contractors need an exemption from this rule that will allow them 

to select a rubber sealant having a petroleum solvent 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 Management" in construction, 

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

sealants. I have also dealt with contractor frustration when a silicone 

sealant just won't stick to a damp surface, nor could they paint over it. 

Professional sealants, those that include petroleum solvents, have proven 

to be the only year-round sealant contractors can use with confidence. I 

have seen the destruction leaks have caused around windows, on roofs 

and behind siding. Many homes have become uninhabitable 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 dollars to correct the 

problem. California MUST allow contractors to be exempt from this ruling. 

Quality construction is a must and professional sealants are insurance 

they are doing everything possible to prevent mold issues and serious 

water damage. Please consider these issues and reduce all of the 

litigation that will result by restricting contractors 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 siding, 

window and Patio Cover contractors are using at this time are going to be 

taken off the market (California only). We currently use petroleum based 

rubber sealants because it adheres best in wet weather or under damp 

conditions. If we are limited to silicone-based sealants, only, then the call 

back rate to product failure will skyrocket. We believe in giving our 

customers the best quality installation possible and we can not do that 

with current silicone product that are on the market today. 
55 

Please DO NOT OUTLAW THESE SEALANTS BUT IF YOU DO PLEASE 

MAKE IT AN EXCEPTION FOR "CONTRACTORS USE ONLY." [VDI] 

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 Modified Text. 

However, for completeness, staff incorporates the Agency 

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 professional 

contractors under various environmental conditions.