California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

FOR

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA

CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION

Release Date:

September 10, 1999
State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

Public Hearing to Consider

 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION

To be considered by the Air Resources Board on October 28, 1999, at:

Air Resources Board

Board Hearing Room, Lower Level

2020 L Street

Sacramento, California

Air Resources Board

P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, CA 95812

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

does not signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor

does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation

for use.
State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION 

Prepared by:

Stationary Source Division

Air Resources Board

Reviewed by:

Barbara A. Fry, Manager, Measures Development Section

Carla D. Takemoto, Manager, Technical Evaluation Section

Steve D. Giorgi, Manager, Implementation Section

Janette M. Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch

Donald J. Ames, Assistant Chief, Stationary Source Division

Peter D. Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division

September 1999
Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments

to the 

California Consumer Products Regulation 

Introduction and Executive Summary

and

Technical Support Document

Air Resources Board

P. O. Box 2815

Sacramento, CA 95812
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report and the proposed amendments to the consumer products regulation were

developed by the following Air Resources Board staff:

Paul Milkey (Lead)

Nancy Adams

Andrew Chew, M.S.

Daryn Dodge, Ph.D.

Michael Fitzgibbon, P.E.

Marline Hicks

Robert Jenne, Esq. 

David Julian, P.E.

David Kemena

Eric Kwok, Ph.D.

Reza Mahdavi, Ph.D.

Doris Rausch

Jim Stebbins, M.S.

Floyd Vergara, P.E.

Melinda Weaver

Dodie Weiner

Ed Wong

We would like to extend our appreciation to the Adhesive and Sealant Council, Automotive

Chemical Manufacturers Council, the Automotive Parts and Accessories Association, the

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance

Association, and the National Paint and Coatings Association for facilitating discussion among

industry and governmental representatives.
Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the

California Consumer Products Regulation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

Volume I:

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

A. History and Background ............................................ 1

B. California’s SIP and Consumer Products ................................ 2

C. SIP Lawsuit Settlement Agreement .................................... 3

D. Proposed Mid-Term Measures II Amendments ........................... 4

II. Executive Summary .................................................. 5

A. Introduction ..................................................... 5

B. Summary of Proposed Amendments ................................... 5

C. Regulatory Development Process and Evaluation of Alternatives ............. 10

D. Compliance with the Mid-term Measures II Proposal ...................... 12

E. Economic Impacts ................................................ 17

F. Environmental Impacts ............................................ 19

G. Future Plans .................................................... 21

III. Recommendation ................................................... 23

Volume II:

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

I. Introduction ..................................................... I-25

A. Overview .................................................... I-25

B. Enabling Legislation ............................................ I-25

C. Background ................................................... I-26

II. Development of Proposed Amendments ................................ II-32

A. Process for Developing Proposed Limits ............................. II-32

B. Evaluation of Alternatives ........................................ II-33

III. Technical Basis for the Proposed Amendments .......................... III-34

A. Technologically Feasible ........................................ III-34

B. Commercially Feasible .......................................... III-35
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Contents Page

IV. Emissions ...................................................... IV-40

A. Ambient Air Quality and the Need for Emission Reductions .............. IV-40

B. Why Regulate Consumer Products? ................................ IV-47

C. Estimated Emissions from Consumer Products and 

Mid-term Measures II Categories ................................ IV-49

V. Proposed Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation ................ V-57

A. Definitions (Section 94508) ....................................... V-57

B. Limits and Requirements (Section 94509) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V58

C. Other Sections (Sections 94510-94517) .............................. V-60

VI. Description of Product Categories .................................... VI-64

A. Automotive Brake Cleaners .................................... VI-64

B. Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids ............................ VI-70

C. Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners .................... VI-80

D. Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives .................. VI-87

E. Crawling Bug Insecticides ..................................... VI-94

F. Double Phase Air Fresheners .................................. VI-100

G. Engine Degreasers .......................................... VI-108

H. Flying Bug Insecticides (aerosols) .............................. VI-119

I. Furniture Maintenance Products (aerosols) ........................ VI-123

J. General Purpose Cleaners (non-aerosols) ......................... VI-129

K. General Purpose Degreasers ................................... VI-137

L. Glass Cleaners (non-aerosols) ................................. VI-141

M. Hair Mousses .............................................. VI-146

N. Lawn and Garden Insecticides ................................. VI-150

O. Nail Polish Removers ........................................ VI-154

P. Sealants and Caulking Compounds .............................. VI-159

Q. Tire Sealants and Inflators .................................... VI-166

VII. Environmental Impacts .......................................... VII-175

A. Summary of Environmental Impacts ............................ VII-175

B. Legal Requirements Applicable to the Analysis .................... VII-175

C. VOC Emission Reductions and Potential Environmental Impacts ...... VII-176

D. Potential Environmental Impacts on Global Warming and Stratospheric Ozone

Depletion ................................................ VII-181

E. Potential Environmental Impacts from Increased Use of

Toxic Air Contaminants ..................................... VII-184

F. Other Potential Environmental Impacts ......................... VII-189

G. Impacts on the State Implementation Plan for Ozone ............... VII-189
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Contents Page

VIII. Economic Impacts ............................................ VIII-196

A. Introduction ................................................. VIII-196

B. Economic Impacts Analysis on California Businesses as Required 

by the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ................. VIII-198

C. Analysis of Potential Impacts to California State or Local Agencies ....... VIII-206

D. Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness (C.E.) of the Proposed Limits ......... VIII-206

E. Analysis of the Impacts to Raw Materials Cost ...................... VIII-216

F. Analysis of the Combined Impacts on Per-Unit Cost from 

Recurring and Nonrecurring Costs ................................ VIII-219

G. Mitigation of Potential Impacts Through Additional Regulatory 

Flexibility Provided by the Innovative Products Provision and the 

Alternative Control Plan (ACP) Regulation ......................... VIII-222

IX. Future Activities ................................................... IX-224

A. Reactivity-Based Regulation for Aerosol Coatings ..................... IX-224

B. State Implementation Plan Update ................................. IX-224

APPENDIX A: Proposed Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation.

APPENDIX B: Mid-term Measures II Meeting Notices (Subgroups and Workshops).

APPENDIX C: 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey.

APPENDIX D: Summary of Regulations Adopted and Dates of Regulatory Amendments.

APPENDIX E: Summary of Cost Calculations.

APPENDIX F: Lawsuit Settlement Agreement.
LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

Volume I: Introduction and Executive Summary

Table 1: Product Categories Covered by Mid-term Measures II Amendments .......... 5

Table 2: Proposed VOC Limits ............................................ 6

Table 3: Chronology of Mid-term Measures II Public Meetings ................... 10

Table 4: Summary of Complying Products ................................... 14

Table 5: VOC Emissions and Reductions by Product Category .................... 15

Volume II: Technical Support Document

Table II-1: Chronology of Mid-term Measures II Public Meetings ................. II-32

Table III-1: Limits, Complying Products, and Complying 

Marketshare ................................................ III-37

Table IV-1: Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and PM10 .................. IV-43

Table IV-2: VOC Emissions by Product Category ............................. IV-52

Table V-1: New Definitions Proposed for Addition ............................ V-57

Table V-2: Existing Definitions Proposed for Modification ....................... V-58

Table V-3: Existing Definitions Proposed for Deletion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V58

Table V-4: Proposed VOC Limits and Effective Dates .......................... V-59

Table VI-1: Automotive Brake Cleaners .................................... VI-65

Table VI-2: Automotive Brake Cleaners Proposal ............................. VI-67

Table VI-3: Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids ............................ VI-71

Table VI-4: Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids Proposal ..................... VI-75

Table VI-5: Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners ..................... VI-81

Table VI-6 Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners Proposal ............. VI-84

Table VI-7 Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives .................. VI-89

Table VI-8: Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives Proposal ........... VI-92

Table VI-9: Crawling Bug Insecticides ..................................... VI-94

Table VI-10: Crawling Bug Insecticides Proposal .............................. VI-98

Table VI-11: Double Phase Air Fresheners .................................. VI-100

Table VI-12: Double Phase Air Fresheners Proposal ........................... VI-102

Table VI-13: Engine Degreasers .......................................... VI-109

Table VI-14: Engine Degreasers Proposal ................................... VI-111

Table VI-15: Flying Bug Insecticides ....................................... VI-120

Table VI-16: Flying Bug Insecticides Proposal ............................... VI-122

Table VI-17: Furniture Maintenance Products ................................ VI-124

Table VI-18: Furniture Maintenance Products Proposal ......................... VI-126
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Title Page

Table VI-19: General Purpose Cleaners (nonaerosols) .......................... VI-130

Table VI-20: General Purpose Cleaners (nonaerosols) Proposal ................... VI-133

Table VI-21: General Purpose Degreasers (non-aerosols) ....................... VI-138

Table VI-22: General Purpose Degreasers (non-aerosols) Proposal ................ VI-140

Table VI-23: Glass Cleaners (non-aerosols) .................................. VI-142

Table VI-24: Glass Cleaners (non-aerosols) Proposal .......................... VI-144

Table VI-25: Hair Mousses .............................................. VI-146

Table VI-26: Hair Mousses Proposal ....................................... VI-150

Table VI-27: Lawn and Garden Insecticides ................................. VI-151

Table VI-28: Lawn and Garden Insecticides Proposal .......................... VI-153

Table VI-29: Nail Polish Removers ........................................ VI-155

Table VI-30: Nail Polish Removers Proposal ................................. VI-158

Table VI-31: Sealants and Caulking Compounds .............................. VI-160

Table VI-32: Sealants and Caulking Compounds Proposal ....................... VI-164

Table VI-33: Tire Sealants and Inflators .................................... VI-167

Table VI-34: Tire Sealants and Inflators Proposal ............................. VI-168

Table VII-1: Summary of Emissions and Emission Reductions from the 

Proposed Limits ........................................... VII-177

Table VII-2: Mid-term Measures and Aerosol Coatings Reduction 

Requirements SIP Reductions for 2002 (tons per day) .............. VII-191

Table VIII-1: Industries with Businesses Potentially Affected by the 

Proposed Standards ........................................ VIII-200

Table VIII-2: Estimated Total Impacts to Businesses from Both Annualized 

Non-Recurring and Annual Recurring Costs ...................... VIII-202

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

Businesses in Affected Industries .............................. VIII-203

Table VIII-4: California Employment and Payroll in Affected Industries ............ VIII-205

Table VIII-5: Estimated Total Annualized Non-Recurring Fixed Cost to Comply 

with Proposed Standards .................................... VIII-214

Table VIII-6: Estimated Cost-Effectiveness for Proposed Standards ............... VIII-215

Table VIII-7: Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for Phase III and Other ARB

Consumer Product Regulations/Measures ........................ VIII-216

Table VIII-8: Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost Per Unit ................. VIII-218

Table VIII-9: Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impacts for the Proposed 

Limits and Other ARB Consumer Product Regulations .............. VIII-219

Table VIII-10: Estimated Per-Unit Cost Increases from Both Annualized 

Non-Recurring and Annual Recurring Costs ...................... VIII-221
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

Figure IV-1: Population-Weighted Exposure to Ozone Concentrations

Above the State Ambient Air Quality Standard ...................... IV-41

Figure IV-2: California Ambient Air Quality Exceedences During 1997 ............. IV-44

Figure IV-3: Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standard

for Ozone .................................................. IV-45

Figure IV-4: Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standard

for PM10 ................................................... IV-46

Figure IV-5: Stationary Source VOC Emissions ............................... IV-49
State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Initial Statement of Reasons 

for Proposed Amendments to the 

California Consumer Products Regulation 

Volume I:

Introduction and Executive Summary
Volume I, Introduction, Page 1

I.

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the Air Resources Board (ARB/Board) staff’s proposed “Mid-term

Measures II” amendments to the California regulation for reducing volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions from consumer products (the “consumer products regulation”). The proposed

amendments are designed to meet the ARB’s statutory requirement to achieve the maximum

feasible reductions from consumer products. The proposed amendments, along with other ARB

regulations under development, are also designed to fulfill the requirements of a lawsuit settlement

agreement with environmental groups regarding ARB’s progress under the State Implementation

Plan (SIP).

This report represents the Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking required

by the California Administrative Procedure Act and is comprised of two volumes. Volume I,

“Introduction and Executive Summary,” provides a short overview of the ARB’s consumer

products program, the consumer products element of the SIP, the SIP lawsuit settlement

agreement, and the proposed “Mid-term Measures II” amendments. For simplicity, this summary

is presented in question-and-answer format, including commonly asked questions about this

regulatory effort. Volume II, the Technical Support Document, is a more detailed presentation of

the technical basis for the proposed amendments.

A. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

In 1988, the Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA or “the Act”), which

declared that attainment of the California state ambient air quality standards is necessary to

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

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

practicable date.

The CCAA added section 41712 to the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), which

requires the ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in reactive

organic compounds (ROCs) emitted by consumer products (note: ROC is equivalent to VOC). 

As part of the regulatory adoption process, the ARB must determine that adequate data exist for it

to adopt the regulations. The ARB must also find that the regulations are necessary,

technologically and commercially feasible, and do not eliminate a product form. In enacting

section 41712, the Legislature gave the ARB clear new authority to control emissions from

consumer products, an area that had previously been subject to very few air pollution control

regulations. 
Volume I, Introduction, Page 2

To date, the Board has adopted the following five regulatory actions to fulfill the

requirements of the California Clean Air Act as it pertains to consumer products: 

C Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulation (1989)

C “Phase I” Consumer Products Regulation (1990) 

C “Phase II” amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation (1992)

C Aerosol Coatings Regulation (1995, 1998)

C “Phase III” (Mid-term Measures) amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation

(1997)

The first regulation was approved in November 1989, and required a reduction in VOC

emissions from antiperspirants and deodorants (the “Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulation”). 

The second regulation, the “Phase I Consumer Products Regulation,” was approved in 

October 1990, and required a reduction in VOC emissions from 16 different consumer product

categories. In January 1992, the Board approved “Phase II” amendments to the consumer

products regulation which required emission reductions from ten additional consumer product

categories. To provide greater flexibility to the regulated industry, the ARB approved the

Alternative Control Plan regulation in September 1994. This regulation provides manufacturers

with an alternative means of complying with the regulations by allowing “emissions averaging” of

products above and below the applicable VOC limits. In March 1995, the Board adopted the

aerosol coatings regulation, which required emissions reductions from 35 categories of aerosol

paints and related coating products. In November 1998, the Board adopted revisions to many of

the future effective VOC limits in the aerosol coatings regulation after a review of their

technological and commercial feasibility. Finally, in July 1997, the Board approved the

“Phase III” amendments to the consumer products regulation. These amendments added 

18 additional categories to the consumer products regulation and were designed to partially fulfill

the “Mid-term Measures” commitments under the SIP as discussed below.

B. CALIFORNIA’S SIP AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS

On November 15, 1994, the ARB adopted the SIP for ozone. The 1994 SIP serves as

California's overall long-term plan for attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard. Together

with significant reductions from stationary industrial facilities, mobile sources 

(e.g. cars, trains, boats), and other area sources (e.g. architectural and industrial maintenance

coatings), the reductions in the consumer products element of the SIP are an essential part of

California’s effort to attain the air quality standards for ozone. The VOC reductions from

consumer products are also needed to help several local air pollution control districts meet 

rate-of-progress requirements in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). California also relies on

strategies in the 1994 SIP to make progress toward attaining federal standards for particulate

matter and state ambient air quality standards.
Volume I, Introduction, Page 3

The consumer products component of the SIP is a multi-faceted program comprised of

“near-term,” “mid-term,” and “long-term” control measures. The near-term SIP measures consist

of the Phase I consumer products regulation, the Phase II amendments to the consumer products

regulation, and the aerosol coatings regulation. The mid-term measures currently consist of the

“Phase III” amendments to the consumer products regulation. The Phase III amendments to the

consumer products regulation partially fulfill the Mid-term Measures SIP commitment. As

explained in the next section, the proposed “Mid-term Measures II” amendments are designed to

fulfill the consumer products component of a lawsuit settlement regarding the ARB’s progress

under the SIP. The long-term measures have not yet been developed and will rely on new

technologies with components of market incentives and consumer education. 

In the SIP, the ARB has committed to an overall 85 percent reduction in consumer

product emissions by the year 2010 (including the adopted regulations). The reduction is

necessary for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), among others, to attain the federal ozone

standard and meet the rate-of-progress requirements under the CAA. Under the SIP, the various

control measures will contribute the following emission reductions:

Consumer Products SIP Commitments

SIP Measures Emission Reduction

Near-term 30%

Mid-term 25%

Long-term 30%

All Measures 85%

C. SIP LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On September 18, 1997, three environmental groups (Communities for a Better

Environment, the Coalition for Clean Air, and the Natural Resources Defense Council) filed a

complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit

was filed against the ARB, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and

the United States Environmental Protection Agency related to California’s progress in achieving

the 1994 SIP commitments. A supplemental complaint was filed on October 5, 1998, that

addressed the ARB’s progress toward achieving the consumer products commitments in the SIP. 

The ARB reached a settlement agreement with these groups on January 28, 1999. Under the

agreement, the ARB committed to achieve 42 tons per day (tpd) of reactive organic gas (ROG)

reductions and 2 tpd of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) reductions (in the SCAB in 2010), with 12 tpd

of ROG reductions from control measures adopted by December 31, 1999. The ARB staff also

committed to submit to the Board and propose for adoption a number of measures, including a

consumer products measure that would be submitted to the Board no later than the first or 

second quarter of 2000 and would be implemented from 2002-2004. The emission reductions
Volume I, Introduction, Page 4

estimated for this measure in the agreement are five to twelve tpd in the South Coast Air Basin in

2010. The proposed “Mid-term Measures II” amendments are designed to fulfill the commitment

to propose a consumer products measure for adoption, and to partially fulfill the 42 tpd of ROG

reductions commitment in the lawsuit settlement agreement.

D. PROPOSED MID-TERM MEASURES II AMENDMENTS

The proposed amendments to the consumer products regulation would add product

category definitions and VOC limits for two new product categories, and revise the existing VOC

limits for 15 consumer product categories to make them more stringent. Additional subcategories

are proposed for some of the existing product categories with separate VOC limits for each

subcategory. The new or modified VOC limits would become effective on one of the three

following dates, depending on the product category: December 31, 2002, December 31, 2003, or

December 31, 2004. In addition, various modifications are proposed to the existing definitions for

certain product categories. The proposed amendments would also consolidate and expand the

existing reporting requirements for products containing methylene chloride or perchloroethylene. 

These reporting requirements will allow the ARB to track the use of these compounds, which are

classified as toxic air contaminants, and take appropriate action to protect public health if

manufacturers increase the use of these compounds.

The proposed regulatory action will achieve VOC emission reductions of approximately

21 tons per day in California by the end of 2005, with full implementation of all proposed

standards. This emission reduction equates to a 9 ton per day reduction in the South Coast Air

Basin in 2010 (based on “1994 SIP currency” as explained in Chapter IV of the Technical Support

Document). This proposal therefore partially satisfies the ARB’s obligation under the SIP lawsuit

settlement agreement for emission reductions from measures adopted in 1999. 

In addition to the proposed Mid-term Measures II amendments, ARB staff is investigating

options for an airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) for automotive consumer products

containing chlorinated compounds, including perchloroethylene and methylene chloride. 

The ATCM may cover some of the automotive product categories impacted by the proposed 

Mid-term Measures II amendments. We are working closely with the affected industry

representatives to ensure a smooth integration of the two regulations. The ATCM is currently

scheduled to be considered by the Board in the Spring of 2000.
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 5

II.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. INTRODUCTION

In this executive summary, we provide a discussion of the staff’s proposed 

“Mid-term Measures II” amendments to the consumer products regulation and explain the

rationale for the proposed changes. A more detailed discussion in Chapter V of the Technical

Support Document is intended to satisfy the requirements of Government Code 

section 11346.2(a)(1), which requires that a noncontrolling “plain English” summary of the

regulation be made available to the public. 

B. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

What product categories are covered under the proposed amendments?

The proposed amendments will affect 17 consumer product categories. As shown in

Table 1 below, these include two new categories, for which new product category definitions and

VOC limits are proposed, and 15 previously regulated categories for which more stringent limits

are proposed. Also, note that the three product categories with asterisks in Table 1 have been

expanded to include some additional types of products.

Table 1

Product Categories Covered by Mid-term Measures II Amendments

New Categories

Sealant and Caulking Compound Tire Sealants and Inflators

Previously Regulated Categories

Air Fresheners (double-phase aerosol) Automotive Brake Cleaners

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake

(non-type “A” areas: dilutable and Cleaner*

pre-mixed)

Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Crawling Bug Insecticide (aerosol)

Adhesive*

Engine Degreasers Flying Bug Insecticides (aerosol)

Furniture Maintenance Products (aerosol) General Purpose Cleaners (non-aerosol)
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 6

Table 1 (continued)

Previously Regulated Categories

General Purpose Degreasers* Glass Cleaners (non-aerosol)

(non-aerosol)

Hair Mousses Lawn and Garden Insecticides 

(non-aerosol)

Nail Polish Removers

* These product categories have been modified to include additional types of products. 

How do the proposed VOC limits compare to the current VOC limits?

The proposed VOC limits and effective dates are shown in Table 2. As shown in the table,

many of the proposed VOC limits are significantly lower than the current VOC limits, reflecting

the use of new exempt compounds and technologies that have become available since the earlier

limits were adopted. Also note that for four categories (general purpose cleaners, general purpose

degreasers, glass cleaners, and engine degreasers), the existing limits were bifurcated into two

separate limits.

Table 2

Proposed VOC Limits

Product Category Form (wt%) (wt%) Date

Product VOC Limit VOC Limit Effective

Current Proposed

Automotive Brake Cleaners All forms 50 45 12/31/02

Automotive Windshield Washer

Fluids

all non-type “A” areas All forms 10 1 12/31/02

Air Fresheners (double-phase Aerosol 30 20 12/31/04

aerosol) 

Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air All forms 75 45 12/31/02

Intake Cleaners

Construction, Panel, and Floor All forms 40 15 12/31/02

Covering Adhesives 

Crawling Bug Insecticides Aerosol 20 15 12/31/04
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 7

Table 2 (continued)

Proposed VOC Limits

Product Category Form (wt%) (wt%) Date

Product VOC Limit VOC Limit Effective

Current Proposed

Engine Degreasers Aerosol 50 35 12/31/04

Non-aerosol 50 5 12/31/04

Flying Bug Insecticides Aerosol 35 25 12/31/03

Furniture Maintenance Products Aerosol 25 17 12/31/04

General Purpose Cleaners Dilutable 10 1 12/31/04

(non-aerosol)

Ready-to-use 10 3 12/31/04

General Purpose Degreasers Dilutable 10 1 12/31/04

(non-aerosol)

Ready-to-use 10 3 12/31/04

Glass Cleaners (non-aerosol) Dilutable 6 1 12/31/04

Ready-to-use 6 4 12/31/04

Hair Mousses All forms 16 6 12/31/02

Lawn & Garden Insecticides Non-aerosol 20 3 12/31/03

Nail Polish Removers All forms 75 0 12/31/04

Sealant and Caulking Compounds All forms None 4 12/31/02

Tire Sealants & Inflators All forms None 20 12/31/02

What other amendments to the consumer products regulation are being proposed?

We are proposing to: (1) consolidate and expand the reporting requirements for

perchloroethylene and methylene chloride; (2) delete outdated reporting requirements for

hairsprays; (3) modify the Table of Standards to improve its clarity; and (4) modify certain

definitions in the regulation. 
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 8

Regarding the reporting requirements, the proposed amendments would consolidate the two

existing reporting requirements for perchloroethylene and methylene chloride under 

sections 94513(e), and 94513(g). The existing reporting requirements under section 94513(e) apply

to products regulated in the “Phase I and II” rulemakings, and only apply to perchloroethylene. The

existing reporting requirements under section 94513(g) apply to products regulated in the “Phase

III” rulemaking and apply to both perchloroethylene and methylene chloride. The new reporting

requirements would apply to all consumer products subject to the regulation that contain either

perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. Under the proposed reporting requirements,

manufacturers would be required to report their annual sales of products containing

perchloroethylene or methylene chloride in California, and the percentage of perchloroethylene or

methylene chloride in each product. This information will allow ARB to track the use of these

compounds, which are identified by regulation as Toxic Air Contaminants in California, and take

appropriate action to protect public health if there is an increase in their use.

We are proposing to delete the outdated reporting requirements for hairsprays under section

94513(f). Under this provision, hairspray manufacturers were required to submit compliance plans

and other information that would allow ARB staff to track the progress of manufacturers in

developing hairsprays to meet the 55 percent VOC limit by June 1, 1999. The new 55 percent VOC

limit for hairsprays is now in effect and the compliance dates for the reporting requirements have

passed. 

To improve the clarity of the Table of Standards, which specifies the VOC limits for the

consumer product categories, we are proposing to alphabetize the product categories rather than

leave them grouped into the “Phase I, II, and III” rulemakings. This will make it easier for

manufacturers or other interested parties to find the product categories and VOC limits of interest to

them. We are also proposing to add several footnotes to the Table of Standards that will direct the

reader to exemptions or other provisions that apply to specific product categories.

Finally, modifications to several definitions are proposed. As mentioned under the response

to the previous question, we have expanded some of the product category definitions to include

additional products. We are proposing to define dilutable automotive windshield washer fluids as

those products packaged in one quart or smaller containers. We are also proposing to modify the

fabric protectant definition to make it more enforceable. Finally, we are proposing to modify the

definition of “existing product” to replace the terms “Phase I,” “Phase II,” and “Phase III” with the

appropriate dates for each of these rulemaking efforts. This is necessary because we are proposing to

remove the “Phase I, II and III” terminology from the Table of Standards.

Why are we proposing the Mid-term Measures II amendments?

We are proposing the Mid-term Measures II amendments to help us meet our SIP

commitments and fulfill the conditions of a SIP lawsuit settlement agreement. Specifically, on

September 18, 1997, three environmental groups (Communities for a Better Environment, the

Coalition for Clean Air, and the Natural Resources Defense Council) filed a complaint with a 
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 9

United States District Court against the ARB, the South Coast Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency related to California’s progress

in achieving the 1994 SIP commitments. A supplemental complaint was filed on 

October 5, 1998, that related to the ARB’s progress in achieving the Mid-term Measures

commitment in the SIP. However, the ARB reached a settlement agreement with these groups. 

Under the agreement, the ARB committed to adopt measures in 1999 that would achieve 12 tpd of

ROG reductions in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in 2010 toward an ultimate reduction

commitment of 42 tpd ROG and 2 tpd NO . In the agreement, the ARB estimated that a consumer x

product regulation could achieve a five to 12 tpd reduction in ROG emissions in the SCAB in 2010

based on the assumptions in the 1994 SIP inventory (“1994 SIP currency”). The proposed

regulatory action (referred to as “Mid-term Measures II”) is designed to partially fulfill the ARB’s

commitment for ROG reductions in the lawsuit settlement agreement. Specifically, it will achieve a

nine ton per day emission reduction in the SCAB in 2010 in “1994 SIP currency” (as explained in

Chapter IV of the “Technical Support Document”).

Who would be affected by these proposed amendments?

The proposed Mid-term Measures II amendments would apply to anyone who sells, supplies,

offers for sale, or manufactures consumer products subject to the proposed amendments for use in

California. The primary impact would be on manufacturers and marketers of consumer products,

which will have to reformulate some of their products. There may also be an impact on distributors

and retailers, who must ensure that they are selling or supplying complying products. In addition,

since some products will have to be reformulated, suppliers of chemicals, propellants, containers,

valves, and other components may be impacted, depending on whether there is an increased or

decreased demand for their products. Finally, consumers may have to pay more for some consumer

products, or may have to make some adjustments to their use of the reformulated products.

Will the provisions in the existing consumer products regulation apply to the 

Mid-term Measures II categories?

Yes, the existing provisions in the consumer products regulation (such as the low vapor

pressure VOC exemption, innovative products provision, and variance provision) will apply to the

Mid-term Measures II categories.

Will the Alternative Control Plan (ACP) be available to the Mid-term

Measures II product categories?

Yes, the ACP will allow manufacturers to submit plans to “average” the emissions from any

combination of consumer products subject to the VOC limits in section 94509 of the consumer

products regulation, including the proposed new Mid-term Measures II categories. 
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 10

However, manufacturers cannot submit plans which include consumer products subject to 

section 94509 and aerosol coating products (aerosol paints).

C. REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND EVALUATION OF

ALTERNATIVES

How did ARB staff develop the Mid-term Measures II?

The Mid-term Measures II amendments were developed in cooperation with the consumer

products industry and other interested parties. ARB began this process with a comprehensive survey

of the consumer products industry, the “1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey.” 

This survey collected sales and formulation information on about 100 different consumer product

categories and provided ARB staff with technical information that was used to develop the proposed

amendments. In addition, four public workshops were conducted from March 1999 through July

1999. During the first workshop, we discussed the results of the 

“1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey,” and discussed an initial prioritization of

consumer product categories for regulation development. At the next three workshops, staff

discussed various regulatory proposals. A chronology of the meetings held is shown in Table 3

below.

Table 3

Chronology of Mid-term Measures II Public Meetings

Date Meeting Location

March 18, 1999 1 Public Workshop El Monte, CA st

April 14, 1999 Consumer Products Working Sacramento, CA

Group Meeting and

2 Public Workshop nd

May 18, 1999 3 Public Workshop and Sacramento, CA rd

Industry Presentations

July 13, 1999 4 Public Workshop Sacramento, CA th

To solicit additional information and comments, staff held numerous individual meetings, 

teleconferences, and video conferences with industry representatives. At the request of several

industry associations, we also arranged a meeting on June 16, 1999, where industry representatives

presented technical information related to reformulating aerosol products for consideration in the

rulemaking process. Staff also analyzed survey data, performed shelf surveys, and researched

technical literature, patents, and trade journals during the development of the proposed amendments. 

Who has been most active in the process?
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 11

Consumer product manufacturers and marketers, and their trade associations, have been the

most active in the process. The trade associations include the following:

C Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA)

C Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA)

C National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA)

C Adhesives and Sealants Council (ASC)

C Plastic Pipes and Fittings Association (PPFA)

C Automotive Chemical Manufacturers Council (ACMC)

C Automotive Parts and Accessories Association (APPA)

ARB staff maintains a mailing list of nearly 3,000 companies and interested parties, which

received information throughout the development of the Mid-term Measures II proposal.

How did ARB staff evaluate alternatives and choose the product categories proposed

for regulation?

ARB staff began the selection process by reviewing all the consumer product categories

included in the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, including both unregulated

categories and previously regulated categories. ARB then eliminated from consideration: (1)

categories with less than 0.5 tons per day of VOC emissions; (2) categories recently regulated under

the Mid-term Measures (with the exception of non-aerosol general purpose degreasers) or Aerosol

Coatings Regulation; (3) 100 percent solvent categories such as paint thinners that are candidates for

a reactivity-based approach; (4) certain health benefit products requiring consideration of

recommendations from health experts prior to regulation; (5) categories subject to requirements of

the local air pollution control districts or other jurisdictions; and 

(6) categories not amenable to regulation due to miscellaneous technical issues. The remaining 

35 categories (including 9 unregulated categories and 26 regulated categories), were proposed for

regulation at the first public workshop.

At each of the next three workshops, ARB staff presented regulatory proposals for

discussion. These proposals represented alternative regulations that were considered by the industry. 

After each workshop, ARB staff modified the proposals based on the comments received during the

workshop and technical information received from industry and staff investigations. During this

process, several of the original 35 categories were dropped from consideration because of technical

barriers to reformulation or lack of potential for emission reductions. As mentioned previously, the

current proposal would affect 17 product categories, including two unregulated categories, and 15

previously regulated categories. 
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 12

How were the proposed VOC limits in the Mid-term Measures II established?

The proposed VOC limits are the product of extensive interaction with the affected

consumer products industry, as discussed in the response to a previous question. Although the

proposed limits were based on factors unique to each individual category, the following general

guiding principles were applied:

C technological and commercial feasibility - assuring that reformulation technologies will be

available by the effective date for each proposed limit and that the basic consumer market

demand can be met on that date.

C emission reductions achieved - assuring that our overall proposal will achieve the

maximum feasible reduction as required by state law.

C preservation of product forms - assuring that each existing product form 

(e.g. liquid, semi-solid, solid, aerosol) is able to reformulate to meet the proposed VOC

limit.

C minimize potential for use of Toxic Air Contaminants - assuring that the proposed limit

can be met with formulations which do not rely on the increased use of Toxic Air

Contaminants such as perchloroethylene or methylene chloride.

D. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MID-TERM MEASURES II PROPOSAL 

How will manufacturers comply with the Mid-term Measures II proposal?

Manufacturers of noncomplying products will need to reformulate their products to meet the

applicable VOC limits. Manufacturers have the flexibility to choose any formulation that meets the

applicable VOC limits, and the reformulation options vary with each product category (see Chapter

VI of the Technical Support Document). In general, VOC solvents or propellants will need to be

replaced, or partially replaced, with non-VOC ingredients. This may require switching to a waterbased formulation, a solvent-based formulation using acetone or another exempt solvent, a higher

solids formulation, or a formulation with a non-VOC propellant. Manufacturers may also need to

change the valve, container, or the other components of the consumer product depending on the

individual formulation. ARB staff has proposed VOC limits that can be met without the increased

use of Toxic Air Contaminants such as perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. 

Are there alternative compliance options to the proposed VOC limits?

Yes, manufacturers can comply with the proposed amendments through the use of the

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

manufacturers of “innovative products” to comply with the consumer products regulation if they

demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that their product will result in less VOC

emissions per use than a complying product that meets the applicable VOC limit. The innovative 
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 13

product may result in less emissions due to some characteristic of the product formulation, design,

delivery system, or other factors. 

The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissions from products above and below the

applicable VOC limits, as long as the overall emissions are less than or equal to the emissions that

would have occurred had all the products complied with the VOC limits. Manufacturers must submit

an application which includes the VOC content of the products in the plan, a method of verifying the

sales of each product in the plan, and other information necessary to track overall emissions.

Are the VOC limits proposed in Mid-term Measures II technologically and

commercially feasible?

As explained in detail in Chapters III and VI of the Technical Support Document, all the VOC

limits proposed in Mid-term Measures II are technologically and commercially feasible. The Midterm Measures II limits were targeted towards the lowest VOC content technology within a product

category which would adequately perform the intended function. In doing this, we ensured that the

various product forms within each category would be preserved, and the proposed limits could be

met without the use of Toxic Air Contaminants. ARB staff will track manufacturers’ progress in

meeting the proposed VOC limits, as we have done in past regulatory efforts for consumer products. 

If manufacturers encounter insurmountable difficulties, we will consider proposing amendments to

the consumer products regulation to address them.

As shown in Table 4 below, our survey results demonstrate that products are available that

comply with the proposed limits for all of the product categories, except double-phase aerosol air

fresheners. In the case of double-phase aerosol air fresheners, technology is currently available that

can be used to reformulate products in this category, as explained in Chapter VI of the Technical

Support Document. The complying market shares listed in Table 4 vary widely with each category

(as in previous regulations) because the proposed limits were developed after considering a variety of

factors unique to each category. These factors include the availability of reformulation options that

may not be used in current products, the variety of product types in a given category, patents that

may restrict some reformulation options, and economic issues. Also note that we are providing until

December 31, 2004, for those product categories with the greatest reformulation challenges (see

Table 2 of this Executive Summary). 
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 14

Table 4

Summary of Complying Products

Product Category Form (wt%) Total Share (%)

Product Limit Products/ Market

Proposed Number of

VOC Complying Complying

Automotive Brake Cleaners All 45 51/119 40

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids All 1* 30/55 50

Air Fresheners (double-phase aerosol) Aerosol 20 0/19 0

Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air All 45 7/73 8

Intake Cleaners

Construction, Panel, and Floor All 15 29/74 17

Covering Adhesives 

Crawling Bug Insecticides Aerosol 15 13/62 15

Engine Degreasers Aerosol 35 14/48 46

Non- 5 11/22 96

aerosol

Flying Bug Insecticides Aerosol 25 7/43 13

Furniture Maintenance Products Aerosol 17 19/52 13

General Purpose Cleaners Dilutable 1 329/384 99.9

(non-aerosol)

Ready-to- 3 121/182 61

use

General Purpose Degreasers Dilutable 1 132/199 83

(non-aerosol)

Ready-to- 3 35/95 28

use

Glass Cleaners (non-aerosol) Dilutable 1 22/73 31

Ready-to- 4 29/107 13

use
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 15

Table 4 (continued)

Summary of Complying Products

Product Category Form (wt%) Total Share (%)

Product Limit Products/ Market

Proposed Number of

VOC Complying Complying

Hair Mousses All forms 6 39/137 27

Lawn & Garden Insecticides Non- 3 139/157 99

aerosol

Nail Polish Removers All forms 0 19/54 30

Sealant and Caulking Compounds All forms 4 259/361 69

Tire Sealants & Inflators All forms 20 4/13 50

* The VOC limit for automotive windshield washer fluids in the mountainous “Type A” areas remains at 35% by wt.

What are the emission reduction benefits from the Mid-term Measures II proposal?

The statewide emissions reductions from full implementation of the 21 proposed 

Mid-term Measures II limits is estimated to be about 21 tons per day in California in 1997. 

Table 5 summarizes the emissions and emission reductions from the Mid-term Measures II

proposal. These categories currently contribute approximately 20 percent of the total consumer

product emissions.

Table 5

VOC Emissions and Reductions by Product Category

Product Category (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day)

VOC VOC 2010 Emission

Emissions Emission Reductions in

Adjusted* Reductions South Coast

Construction, Panel and Floor Covering 0.96 0.44 0.23

Adhesives

Sealant and Caulking Compounds 1.87 0.79 0.42

Automotive Brake Cleaners (Non-aerosols) 0.34 0.02 0.01

Automotive Brake Cleaners (Aerosols) 5.26 0.29 0.15

Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake Cleaners 0.23 0.05 0.03

(Non-aerosols)

Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake Cleaners 6.25 2.14 1.13

(Aerosols)
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 16

Table 5 (continued)

VOC Emissions and Reductions by Product Category

Product Category (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day)

VOC VOC 2010 Emission

Emissions Emission Reductions in

Adjusted* Reductions South Coast

Engine Degreasers (Aerosols) 1.67 0.37 0.20

Engine Degreasers (Non-aerosols) 0.08 0.05 0.03

Tire Sealants and Inflators 0.89 0.32 0.17

Auto Windshield Washer Fluids 8.30 7.42 3.94

Flying Bug Insecticide (Aerosols) 0.60 0.11 0.06

Lawn and Garden Insecticides (Non-aerosols) 1.35 0.35 0.19

Crawling Bug Insecticides (Aerosols) 3.81 0.49 0.26

General Purpose Cleaners (Non-aerosols) - 3.18 1.05 0.56

Ready-to-Use

General Purpose Cleaners - (Non-aerosols) - 4.77 0.41 0.22

Dilutables

General Purpose Degreasers (Aerosols) - 0.73 0.36 0.19

(reductions from solvent parts cleaners)

General Purpose Degreasers - 0.95 0.15 0.08

(Non-aerosols) - Ready-to-Use

General Purpose Degreasers - 1.09 0.41 0.22

 (Non-aerosols) - Dilutables

Glass Cleaners - (Non-aerosols) - Ready-to-Use 2.27 0.36 0.19

Glass Cleaners - (Non-aerosols) - Dilutables 1.21 0.82 0.43

Furniture Maintenance Products (Aerosols) 1.98 0.35 0.19

Dual Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners 4.57 1.54 0.82

Hair Mousses 0.76 0.33 0.18

Nail Polish Removers 0.85 0.85 0.45

Total 54 20.1 10.67

Acetone Credit in Nail Polish Remover 1.5 0.8

Total Combined Reduction 21.0 11.13**

* Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage as discussed in Chapter IV.

** 9.0 tpd in 1994 SIP currency as discussed in Chapter IV.
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 17

E. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

What are the expected economic impacts of the proposed regulation on businesses?

In our economic impacts analysis, we evaluated the proposed VOC limits for potential

impacts on profitability and other aspects of businesses subject to the limits (with particular

attention to California businesses), the cost-effectiveness of the limits, and the estimated cost

impacts to consumers. To conduct our analysis, we relied on a combination of publicly available

financial databases (Dun and Bradstreet, Ward’s Business Directory of U.S. Manufacturing

Industries), the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, industry

journals/literature such as the Chemical Market Reporter, discussions with industry

representatives, and the cost analyses conducted for the existing ARB consumer products

program. 

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

of the proposed regulation without an adverse impact on their profitability. In addition, as

explained in more detail in the responses to the following questions, we found that the proposed

amendments are cost-effective relative to similar ARB regulations or measures, and the impacts to

consumers are consistent with existing ARB regulations.

We estimated the change in “return-on-owners equity” (ROE) as an indicator of the limits’

potential impacts on business profitability. The cost to comply with the proposed regulation,

through increased research and development, equipment purchase and other investment costs, is

presumed to impact a business’ ROE and therefore its profitability. The cost to reformulate

noncomplying products for a typical company was used to determine total annual reformulation

costs. Our analysis indicates the estimated change in ROE can vary from essentially no change to

4 percent change. The average change in ROE is about 1.4 percent, relative to the ROE before

the proposed amendments would take effect. This estimated change in ROE is well within the

change in ROE estimated for ARB’s existing consumer products and motor vehicle programs.

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

because it assumes that all of the costs of the proposed limits will be absorbed by manufacturers. 

In reality, we expect that at least some of the investment costs to comply with the proposed limits

will be passed on to consumers. The analysis also does not quantify the extent of cost mitigation

due to “technology-transfer” between product lines and from third-party manufacturers (i.e.,

contract fillers) who fill essentially equivalent products for a number of competing businesses.

While we expect that most businesses will be able to absorb the costs of the proposed

regulation without significant adverse impacts on their profitability, there is the possibility that

some individual businesses will be adversely affected by this regulatory action. Therefore, it is 

possible that the proposed amendments may have a significant adverse impact on some 
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 18

businesses that are not in a market position to invest monies to develop new low VOC products,

or to absorb the increased cost resulting from their compliance with the proposed regulation.

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

impact on employment, or business creation, elimination, or expansion. We also do not expect

the regulation to have a significant impact on the competitiveness of California businesses

compared with those outside of California. This is because all companies that sell these products

in California would have to meet the proposed requirements, whether located in California or

outside of California.

The VOC limits in the proposed amendments will primarily impact consumer product

manufacturers and marketers (companies which contract out the manufacturing of their products). 

However, we recognize that other industries could also be impacted to a lesser amount which is

difficult to quantify. These industries include distributors, retailers, and “upstream” suppliers who

supply containers, valves, solvents, propellants, and other chemicals used in consumer products.

Distributors and retailers could be impacted if some manufacturers decide to carry a dual

inventory of products (one for California and one for the rest of the nation). However, most

manufacturers have indicated that they will not manufacture California and 49-state products

because dual-distribution systems are expensive to establish and maintain. Another potential cost

to distributors or retailers would be the implementation of procedures to ensure that

noncomplying products are not sold past the three year “sell-through period.” However, based on

retail sell-through data obtained during the development of ARB’s existing consumer products

regulations, we believe the existing three year sell-through period should provide ample time to

allow for the sale of noncomplying products.

Upstream suppliers could be impacted because manufacturers will be purchasing some

different solvents, propellants, and other materials for their reformulated products. They may also

purchase different containers, valves, or other components for their reformulated products. 

However, we do not expect these changes to result in a major impact on the affected industries

because chemical companies generally supply many different industries, and because many of the

upstream suppliers also provide the alternative products which will be used in the reformulated

products. In fact, we expect some upstream suppliers will benefit since the proposed limits are

likely to create new or increased demand for materials to be used in compliant formulations. 

Will the proposed amendments be cost-effective?

Cost-effectiveness is one measure of a regulation’s efficiency in reducing a given amount

of pollutant (often reported in “dollars (to be) spent per pound of VOC reduced”). The

determination of cost-effectiveness is well-established and often used to compare a proposed

regulation’s cost-efficiency with those of other regulations. We estimated a cost-effectiveness

range for each of the 17 proposed categories (21 VOC limits including subcategories). To

conduct our analysis, we relied on specific formulation data from the “1997 Consumer and
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 19

Commercial Products Survey,” industry journals/literature such as the Chemical Market Reporter

for ingredient unit prices, discussions with industry representatives, and the cost analyses

conducted for the existing ARB consumer products program. Based on our analyses, we estimate

that the cost-effectiveness of the individual VOC limits ranges from essentially no cost to about

$6.30 per pound of VOC reduced. We estimate the average cost-effectiveness weighted by

emissions reductions across all the proposed limits to be about $0.40 per pound of VOC reduced. 

These estimated cost-effectiveness values are consistent with existing ARB regulations and

control measures.

Will consumers have to pay more for consumer products subject to the 

Mid-term Measures II amendments?

Consumers may have to pay more for some products subject to the Mid-term Measures II

amendments, depending on the extent to which manufacturers are able to pass along their costs to

consumers. As explained in Chapter VIII of the Technical Support Document, assuming that all

the costs of the proposed Mid-term Measures II amendments are passed along to consumers, the

change in cost per unit would range from no cost to a cost increase of $0.30, depending on the

product category. The average cost increase per unit, is estimated to be about $0.02 per unit.

F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

What are the expected environmental benefits of the Mid-term Measures II

amendments?

The primary environmental benefit of the Mid-term Measures II amendments will be a

reduction in the formation of tropospheric (ground level) ozone. In the presence of sunlight, the

VOCs from consumer products and other sources react with oxides of nitrogen (NOx) to form

ozone. Therefore, the 21 ton per day (tpd) statewide reduction in VOC emissions based on the

1997 survey results (or the 9 ton per day reduction in the SCAB in 2010 based on SIP currency),

from the proposed amendments will result in a positive impact on air quality and public health. In

addition, VOCs have also been found to be a source of PM (minute particulate matter of 10

10 microns or less equivalent aerodynamic diameter), either through condensation of the VOCs or

complex reactions of VOCs with other compounds in the atmosphere. The exact reductions in

ozone and PM10 cannot be accurately predicted due to the wide variety of factors that impact the

formation of ozone and PM . These factors include atmospheric conditions, the ratio of VOCs 10

to NO in the atmosphere, and the reactivity (ozone formation potential) of the individual VOCs x

emitted. 
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 20

How would the Mid-term Measures II proposal reduce the risk to public health?

It has long been known that exposure to ground level ozone and PM have adverse impacts 10

on public health. Research has shown that, when inhaled, ozone and PM10 can cause respiratory

problems, aggravate asthma , and impair the immune system.

In light of this, we conducted a health risk assessment which shows that, by achieving the

maximum feasible VOC emission reduction from the categories proposed for regulation, this

regulation would reduce public health risks by a similar magnitude as other regulations adopted by

the ARB and other environmental agencies. It is difficult to estimate the extent to which this

regulation would reduce ozone and PM10 concentrations because of the variety of factors that can

influence ozone and PM10 levels, such as weather, geography, emissions distribution, and the ratio

of VOCs to NOx. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that by reducing VOC

emissions, ozone and PM10 concentrations are reduced. Therefore, by reducing ozone and PM10

concentrations, this regulation would reduce the health risks posed by exposure to these pollutants.

Are there any potential negative environmental impacts?

We examined the potential effect of the proposed regulation on air quality, global

warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, the use of Toxic Air Contaminants, and the impacts on

water quality and solid waste disposal. Based on our analysis, as detailed in Chapter VII of the

Technical Support Document, we do not expect any adverse environmental impacts to result from

the proposed Mid-term Measures II amendments, with one exception. In order to propose more

stringent VOC limits on non-aerosol general purpose degreasers to be effective on December 31,

2004, it is necessary to repeal the less stringent 10 percent limit scheduled to become effective on

January 1, 2001. Repealing the 10 percent limit will result in cumulative excess emissions of 0.5

tpd in California (based on the 1997 survey results) for the four year period from January 1, 2001,

to December 31, 2004. However, the temporary delay will allow manufacturers to focus their

research and development efforts on the much more stringent limits proposed in this rulemaking

(three percent for ready-to-use products and one percent for dilutable products). These more

stringent limits will achieve a permanent additional 1.1 tpd emission reduction beginning in 2005,

which we believe overrides the temporary loss in emission reductions.

What about the potential for an increase in the use of methylene chloride or

perchloroethylene? 

We do not believe that manufacturers will reformulate their products to comply with the

proposed VOC limits using perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. The proposed VOC limits

are designed to allow manufacturers to reformulate using other reformulation options. In

addition, we have also found that many manufacturers are reluctant to use these compounds

because of health and safety concerns, as well as additional regulations, including labeling

requirements and occupational exposure limits. Some companies also have corporate policies

discouraging or limiting their use. Nevertheless, we have included reporting requirements in the

regulation that will require manufacturers of products containing either perchloroethylene or
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 21

methylene chloride to report their usage. This will allow us to track the use of these compounds,

and take appropriate action in the unlikely event that there is an increase. Finally, ARB staff is

currently investigating options for an airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) for automotive

consumer products containing chlorinated compounds such as perchloroethylene and methylene

chloride.

G. FUTURE PLANS

How will the “reactivity” of individual VOC’s be considered in future consumer

products rules?

Every VOC reacts differently under ambient conditions to form ozone; this tendency is

called the VOC’s “reactivity.” Individual VOCs vary both in their rate of ozone formation and in

the quantity of ozone formed. A relative reactivity scale was recently developed to rank VOCs

based on their tendency to form ozone. Each VOC in this scale is assigned an “ozone formation

potential” value based on smog chamber studies or by comparison with similar VOCs. Such a

relative reactivity scale serves as the basis for the ARB’s existing Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV)

program.

Traditional mass-based VOC limits have treated all VOCs equally, with no consideration

for the reactivity of individual compounds (other than exempting negligibly-reactive compounds). 

Prior to the development of the consumer products element of the SIP, the consumer products

industry expressed interest in using a reactivity-based strategy for controlling VOC emissions

from consumer products. Therefore, the ARB included a commitment in the SIP to investigate

the feasibility of incorporating a reactivity scheme into the consumer products program. 

To oversee the development of reactivity-based limits, the Reactivity Subgroup of the

Consumer Products Working Group was formed. The Reactivity Subgroup consists of

representatives from the consumer products industry, academia, U.S. EPA, ARB and local air

districts. In addition, ARB established the Reactivity Scientific Advisory Committee (RSAC) in

April 1997. This committee is comprised of top researchers in the field of atmospheric

photochemistry. The Reactivity Subgroup will coordinate with the RSAC to ensure that the

consumer products reactivity program is based on the best available scientific information. 

Reactivity-based limits are currently being developed for aerosol coating product categories,

and may be developed for other consumer product categories as well. For most categories, we are

considering developing reactivity-based limits that are optional to the mass-based limits. That is,

manufacturers would have the option of complying with either the mass-based limit or the reactivitybased limit. Both limits will result in equivalent ozone reductions. However, for some categories

comprised of 100 percent VOCs (e.g. paint thinners), mandatory reactivity limits may be the only

feasible way to reduce the ozone formation potential from these products.

What are ARB’s plans for updating the State Implementation Plan?
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 22

Over the next year, the ARB will be working on a comprehensive update to our 

1994 Ozone SIP. The motor vehicle emission inventory model is currently being updated, as is

the off-road mobile source emissions inventory. The consumer products emissions inventory is

also being updated using the 1997 Consumer Products Survey, and the South Coast Air Quality

Management District is pursuing similar efforts for stationary sources in the region. These revised

inventories, in combination with new ozone episode data from the Southern California Ozone

Study, will be used to refine the air quality model for the South Coast Air Basin to determine the

revised emission reduction target needed to attain federal and state health-based ozone standards

in the Basin.

To kick off the development of new statewide strategies, on October 5-7, 1999, ARB will

host Exploring New Technologies for Clean Air, a symposium to highlight technologies capable

of achieving zero and near-zero emissions. We will follow up the symposium with workshops to

discuss the comprehensive statewide emission reduction strategy. Throughout this process, we

will continue to work closely with the regulated industry, government agencies, academia,

environmental groups and the public as we develop plans for achieving the health-based ambient

air quality standards. We will continue to work closely with the Consumer Products Working

Group and other representatives of the consumer products industry to re-evaluate the appropriate

level for long-term commitments for consumer products. 

We anticipate presenting a revised control plan for the Board’s consideration and adoption

in 2000 or 2001. The revised statewide strategy will also be incorporated into the South Coast

Air Quality Management District’s updated Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Upon

adoption of the AQMP by the District Board and the Air Resources Board, we will submit the

revised emission inventories, attainment demonstration, and control plan to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as a SIP revision. The 1994 Ozone SIP will

continue to apply until U.S. EPA approves the SIP revision.
Volume I, Executive Summary, Page 23

III.

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the Board approve the proposed amendments to the consumer

products regulation.
Page 24

State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Initial Statement of Reasons 

for Proposed Amendments to the 

California Consumer Products Regulation 

Volume II:

Technical Support Document
Volume II, Chapter I, Page 25

I.

INTRODUCTION

A. OVERVIEW

In Volume II of the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for Proposed Amendments to the

California Consumer Products Regulation, we present our technical justification and analysis of

the “Mid-term Measures II” proposed amendments to the consumer products regulation. The

proposed Mid-term Measures II amendments are intended to partially fulfill the mid-term

measures commitment of the consumer products element in the State Implementation Plan (SIP),

and satisfy part of a lawsuit agreement reached with environmental groups. The first component

of our mid-term measures commitment in the SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board

(ARB/Board) on July 24, 1997. 

 Included in this technical support document (TSD) is the following information:

C a discussion of the process used to develop the proposed amendments;

C a discussion of the technical basis for the proposed amendments;

C a review of the emissions from the proposed categories for regulation and the overall

need for the emission reductions;

C a description of the proposed amendments and the consumer product categories

proposed for regulation;

C an analysis of the environmental and expected economic impacts from the proposed

amendments; and 

C a discussion of future activities.

B. ENABLING LEGISLATION

In 1988, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA or “the Act”) was adopted by the California

State Legislature to address the State’s serious air pollution problems and the inability of many

areas in California to attain the state and federal ambient air quality standards. The CCAA added

section 41712 to the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) which, along with subsequent

amendments, requires the Board to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction

in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products, if the Board determines

that adequate data exist to establish both of the following:

C The regulations are necessary to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards;

and 

C the regulations are commercially and technologically feasible. 
Volume II, Chapter I, Page 26

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

recommendations from health professionals must be considered to ensure any VOC reductions

from health benefit products do not compromise their health benefits. In enacting section 41712,

the Legislature gave the ARB authority to control emissions from a very diverse number of

products sold statewide to household and commercial consumers. 

C. BACKGROUND

1. Consumer Product Regulations Adopted to Date

To date, the Board has taken several actions to fulfill the legislative mandate. Three

regulations have been adopted regulating a total of 45 consumer product categories and 

35 categories of aerosol coatings. In addition, two voluntary regulations have been adopted to

provide compliance flexibility to companies. (A complete summary of the regulations adopted

and dates of regulatory amendments is provided in Appendix D.) 

On November 8, 1989, the ARB approved a regulation for reducing VOC emissions from

antiperspirants and deodorants (the “antiperspirant and deodorant regulation;” 

sections 94500-94506.5, Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR)) (ARB, 1989a-b). 

The ARB then adopted a more comprehensive regulation for reducing VOC emissions

from 26 additional categories of consumer products, which was adopted by the Board in two

phases (the “Consumer Products Regulation;” sections 94507-95417, Title 17, CCR)(ARB,

1990a-c; ARB, 1991a-c ). Phase I was approved on October 11, 1990, and Phase II was

approved on January 9, 1992. This regulation reduces VOC emissions primarily by specifying

maximum allowable VOC content limits (by weight percent) for individual product categories.

On September 22, 1994, the Board approved the first voluntary regulation, the

“Alternative Control Plan Regulation for Consumer Products” (the “ACP”) (ARB, 1994a-b). The

ACP is a market-based regulation that employs the concept of an aggregate emissions cap or

“bubble.” This program supplements existing regulations by providing consumer products and

aerosol coatings manufacturers additional flexibility when formulating consumer products. This

regulation is contained in Title 17, CCR sections 94540-94555.

The Board adopted the next consumer product regulation on March 23, 1995, the

“Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products”

(the “aerosol coating regulation”) (ARB, 1995 a-b). This regulation limits the VOC contents of

35 categories of aerosol coatings. At the same time, the ACP was amended to make it possible to

“bubble” aerosol coatings emissions. The aerosol coatings regulation is contained in 

Title 17, CCR, sections 94520-94528.

On November 21, 1996, the Board adopted amendments to the “consumer products

regulation” and the “aerosol coating regulation” (ARB, 1996a). Amendments to the consumer
Volume II, Chapter I, Page 27

products regulations were based on the staff’s technical assessment, along with additional changes

to clarify the regulations and improve enforceability. Finally, the VOC definition in the consumer

products regulation and the aerosol coatings regulation was amended to exempt

perchloroethylene as a VOC.

The Board approved several amendments (the Mid-term Measures or Phase III

amendments) to the Consumer Products Regulation after a July 24, 1997, public hearing

(ARB, 1997a). At that time, we partially met our mid-term measures commitment in the 

1994 SIP with the approval of VOC limits for 18 new categories of consumer products. 

On November 13, 1997, the Board approved the second voluntary regulation, the

“Hairspray Credit Program Regulation” (the “hairspray credit program”) (ARB, 1997b). 

The hairspray credit program and related amendments provide for a market-based emission

reduction credit program for both credit generation from hairsprays and credit use within the

consumer products arena. The hairspray credit program is contained in Title 17, CCR, 

sections 94560-94575. 

 On November 19, 1998, the Board adopted amendments to the aerosol coatings

regulation; the consumer products regulation; and the antiperspirant and deodorant regulation

(ARB, 1998). The amendments modified the December 31, 1999, VOC limits in the aerosol

coatings regulation, and the effective dates for these VOC limits. Minor changes were also made

to the definitions and administrative requirements in the aerosol coatings regulation. 

Finally, methyl acetate was added to the list of compounds exempt from the VOC definitions in

the aerosol coatings, consumer products, and antiperspirant and deodorant regulations. 

 

2. Consumer Products and the State Implementation Plan

The State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone (ARB, 1994c) is intended to satisfy the

requirements of the federal Clean Air Act for ozone non-attainment areas in California. Together

with significant reductions from stationary industrial facilities, mobile sources (e.g. cars, trains,

boats), and other area sources (e.g. architectural and industrial maintenance coatings), the

emission reduction commitments in the consumer products element of the SIP are an essential

part of California’s effort to attain the air quality standards for ozone. To attain the federal ozone

standard, it is estimated that an overall 85 percent reduction in consumer product emissions is

needed by 2010 in the South Coast Air Basin. The VOC reductions from consumer products are

also needed to help several local air pollution control districts meet rate-of-progress requirements

in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

The consumer products component of the SIP, approved by the Board on

November 15, 1994, is a multi-faceted program comprised of “near-term”, “mid-term”, and

“long-term” control measures. Under the SIP, the various control measures were anticipated to

reduce emissions by: 30 percent from the near-term measures; 25 percent from the mid-term

measures; and 30 percent from the long-term measures. The near-term SIP measures are
Volume II, Chapter I, Page 28

comprised of the antiperspirant and deodorant, consumer products (Phase I and II amendments),

and aerosol coating regulations. We partially met our mid-term measures commitment with the

approval of VOC limits for 18 additional consumer product categories (the Mid-term Measures or

Phase III amendments) on July 24, 1997. This regulatory action (Mid-term Measures II) will

achieve further emission reductions from additional and existing consumer product categories to

fulfill our mid-term SIP commitment as specified in the SIP lawsuit settlement. The long-term

SIP measures will rely on new technologies, market incentives, and consumer education.

 On November 15, 1994, the ARB submitted the consumer products Phase I and II

regulations and the antiperspirant and deodorant regulation to the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for approval as a SIP revision. On January 13, 1995, the 

U.S. EPA found the submittal complete and approved the regulations on February 14, 1995. 

The U.S. EPA’s approval of the consumer products regulations was published in the Federal

Register on August 21, 1995. The ACP was submitted to the U.S. EPA on August 27, 1996.

On December 18, 1998, the ARB submitted two new consumer products regulations that

had not previously been submitted to the U.S. EPA: Title 17, California Code of Regulations,

sections 94520-94528 (Article 3. Aerosol Coating Products, the “Aerosol Coating Products

Regulation”), and Title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94560-94575 

(Article 5. Hairspray Credit Program, the “HCP Regulation”). This revision also included the

Mid-term Measures amendments (Phase III) partially fulfilling a commitment in the SIP to achieve

an additional 25 percent reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products by 2005. 

3. SIP Lawsuit Settlement

On January 28, 1999, the ARB approved a settlement with three Los Angeles based

environmental groups (Communities for a Better Environment, the Coalition for Clean Air, and

the Natural Resources Defense Council) regarding the 1994 SIP litigation. The lawsuit was filed 

in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the ARB, the South Coast

Air Quality Management District, and the U.S. EPA for failure to implement specific measures

contained in the 1994 SIP. 

ARB has aggressively pursued every feasible emission reduction from mobile and area

sources including consumer products over the past four years to meet our near-term emission

reduction commitments for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the

1994 SIP. As the ARB has implemented the SIP over the last four years, some measures have

delivered more reductions than anticipated, while other measures have delivered fewer reductions

due to technical or economic concerns. The ARB’s ongoing evaluation has also demonstrated

that some regulatory strategies in the 1994 SIP are not feasible or would be ineffective in

reducing emissions. ARB has not implemented those measures, and as a result, the emission

reductions from those measures need to be replaced with other measures to achieve attainment.
Volume II, Chapter I, Page 29

The lawsuit settlement addresses near-term emission reduction shortfalls of 42 tons per

day of ROG and 2 tons per day (tpd) of NO (emission reduction numbers are for the South Coast x

Air Basin in 2010) including the shortfall remaining from the adoption of Mid-term Measures I. 

Under the terms of the settlement, ARB is obligated to achieve the following amounts of emission

reductions (in the South Coast Air Basin in 2010):

12 tpd of ROG from measures adopted in 1999,

14 tpd of ROG from measures adopted in 2000,

16 tpd of ROG from measures adopted in 2001, and

 2 tpd of NO from measures adopted in 2000. x

The agreement also specifies a list of measures ARB staff will present to the Board for

consideration, including: enhanced vapor recovery; fuel can spillage prevention; emission

standards for medium and heavy-duty gas trucks; a lower NO standard for bus engines, x

additional reductions from consumer products; and a suggested control measure for architectural

coatings. Although the agreement includes an estimate of the range of potential emission

reductions from each measure, the total reductions from all measures on the list (at the high end

of the range) are not sufficient to achieve the 42 tpd ROG commitment. ARB will need to pursue

additional measures to ultimately achieve the 42 tpd ROG commitment in the agreement.

As a result of our evaluations, ARB staff believes that additional reductions from

consumer products are achievable, but at a lower level of effectiveness than called for in the SIP. 

For consumer products, we estimate that the emission reductions that will be achieved by adopted

consumer products and aerosol coatings measures will result in a shortfall of 29 tpd of VOC in

the South Coast Air Basin when compared against the near-term and mid-term SIP commitments

for consumer products (43 tpd). As part of the settlement, ARB staff committed to propose

consumer products amendments that would be submitted to the Board no later than the first or

second quarter of 2000. The ROG emissions reductions estimated for this measure in the

settlement are between 5 and 12 tpd in 2010 in the South Coast Air Basin, based on the

assumptions in the 1994 SIP inventory. A 5 to 12 tpd reduction in the South Coast Air Basin in

2010 equals about a 9 to 23 tpd reduction statewide in 1997 (based on the assumptions in the

1994 SIP inventory). The Mid-term Measures II amendments are our proposal to fulfill this

commitment. 

4. National Consumer Products Regulations

On September 11, 1998, the U.S. EPA promulgated a national consumer products

regulation, the “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products

(40 CFR Part 59, Subpart C, Sections 59.201 et seq.; see the September 11, 1998, Federal

Register, Vol. 63, No. 176, pages 48819-48847).” This action promulgates national VOC

emission standards for 24 categories of consumer products. The rule became effective on 

September 11, 1998, and the VOC limits became effective on December 10, 1998. There are 
Volume II, Chapter I, Page 30

similarities and differences between the California and national consumer products regulations;

however, the national rule does not preclude states from adopting more stringent regulations.

Although the national regulation is similar in many aspects to the California regulation, it

is less effective in reducing VOC emissions from consumer products. The national regulation

does not include second tier standards, mid-term measure categories, or aerosol coatings. The

national regulation will achieve a 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions while California’s

existing consumer products and aerosol coatings regulations achieve a 40 percent reduction. 

Because California has unique air quality problems, we must reduce VOC emissions from

consumer products to the maximum extent feasible to attain the federal ambient air quality

standard for ozone. 

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, A Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions

from Antiperspirants and Deodorants, 1989a.

Air Resources Board, A Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions

from Antiperspirants and Deodorants - Technical Support Document, 1989b.

Air Resources Board, Staff Report, Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions from Consumer Products, August, 1990a.

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document, Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products, August, 1990b.

Air Resources Board, Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of

Comments and Agency Responses: Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of a Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products, 

October, 1990c.

Air Resources Board, Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase II, 

October, 1991a.

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document, Proposed Amendments to the Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - 

Phase II, October, 1991b.

Air Resources Board, Appendices, Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase II, October, 1991c.
Volume II, Chapter I, Page 31

Air Resources Board, Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: Public Hearing to Consider the

Adoption of Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions

from Consumer Products - Phase II, January, 1992.

Air Resources Board, Staff Report, Proposed Alternative Control Plan Regulation for Consumer

Products, August, 1994a.

Air Resources Board, Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: Public Hearing to Consider the

Adoption of the Alternative Control Plan Regulation for Consumer Products, 

September, 1994b.

Air Resources Board, The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volumes I-IV,

November, 1994c.

Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for a Proposed Statewide Regulation to

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products and Amendments

to the Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products, February, 1995a.

Air Resources Board, Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking - Public Hearing to Consider

the Adoption of a Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol

Coating Products and Amendments to the Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products, 

March, 1995b.

Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California

Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products and

Aerosol Coating Products, October, 1996a.

Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California

Consumer Products Regulation, June, 1997a.

Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Hairspray Credit Program,

September, 1997b.

Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coatings,

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products, October, 1998.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products, September 11, 1998, Vol.63, No. 176,

pp. 48819-48847.
Volume II, Chapter II, Page 32

II.

DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

A. PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING PROPOSED LIMITS

In order to gather the technical information necessary to develop the Mid-term 

Measures II amendments, staff worked closely with industry and interested stakeholders. 

Representatives from individual companies and trade associations were most active in the process. 

Members of the public and local air district representatives also participated. 

Four public workshops were conducted from March 1999 through July 1999. During the

first public workshop, we discussed the prioritization of the consumer product categories for

regulation development. We also presented draft data summaries from the “1997 Consumer and

Commercial Products Survey (Survey),” which is discussed in more detail in Chapter IV,

“Emissions.” At the second public workshop, staff proposed VOC limits for consumer product

categories prioritized at the first workshop. The proposed limits covered both unregulated and

regulated product categories. At the third public workshop, staff discussed the 1997 Survey data

summary table (which is a summary of sales and emissions obtained from the Survey), and

proposed category definitions and VOC limits. We also heard technical presentations from

industry representatives. The fourth public workshop was held on July 13, 1999, to discuss

proposed regulatory language (including draft revised VOC limits), and a revised 1997 survey

data summary table. A chronology of the meetings held is shown in Table II-1 below. Workshop

notices are shown in Appendix B. 

TABLE II-1

Chronology of Mid-term Measures II Public Meetings

Date Meeting Location

March 18, 1999 1 Public Workshop El Monte, CA st

April 14, 1999 Consumer Products Working Sacramento, CA

Group Meeting and

2 Public Workshop nd

May 18, 1999 3 Public Workshop and Sacramento, CA rd

Industry Presentations

July 13, 1999 4 Public Workshop Sacramento, CA th

To solicit additional information and comments, staff held numerous individual meetings, 

teleconferences, and video conferences with industry representatives. At the request of industry

associations, we held a meeting on June 16, 1999, where industry representatives presented

technical information related to reformulating aerosol products for consideration in the
Volume II, Chapter II, Page 33

rulemaking process. Staff also reviewed survey data, performed shelf surveys, and researched

technical literature, patents, and trade journals during the development of the proposed

amendments. 

B. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Development of the proposed Mid-term Measures II began with the review of the 

“1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (Survey).” The staff conducted this Survey

during 1998 to update the SIP emission inventory and modeling, develop reactivity-based limits,

and prioritize categories for regulatory standard development. The Survey covered about 

100 categories of consumer products, representing an estimated 70 percent of the total consumer

products inventory. The results of this survey, in conjunction with the 1997 aerosol coatings

survey, represent an estimated 80 percent of the total consumer products inventory.

After the Survey data were compiled, we prioritized product categories for regulation. 

This process began with the elimination of categories which could not be addressed under our

schedule. For unregulated surveyed categories, we excluded categories with statewide emissions

of less than 0.5 tons per day (tpd), categories comprised of 100 percent VOC products that

require a reactivity-based strategy, health benefit products, and products that are regulated by the

local districts. Looking at the regulated categories, we excluded categories with emissions less

than 0.5 tpd, and recently regulated categories such as the Mid-term Measures categories 

(with the exception of general purpose degreasers). As a result of this process, we identified 

35 product categories for potential regulation including 9 unregulated and 26 regulated

categories. The total VOC emissions from these categories were 118 tpd statewide in 1997,

including 14 tpd from unregulated and 104 tpd from regulated categories. 

 After further review, we dropped some product categories due to low potential for

emission reductions; postponed some categories to provide adequate time to evaluate the

feasibility of VOC limits and to address complicated technical issues; and we revised our emission

estimates to address mis-categorization and district regulated products (large sizes of adhesives

and sealants). The proposed VOC limits were developed based on the Survey results, discussions

with industry, and the available reformulation technologies. 

During the workshop process, we presented proposals and alternatives to be evaluated.

After additional investigation of the product categories, we added some product categories; some

categories were regrouped based on similarities in product function; and we increased or lowered

the proposed VOC limits on a number of product categories based on technical information

provided by industry and our research. We are currently proposing VOC limits for 17 product

categories.
Volume II, Chapter III, Page 34

III.

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Health and Safety Code section 41712 requires all consumer product regulations adopted

by the Board to be technologically and commercially feasible. During the development of the

Phase I and II consumer product regulations, the ARB staff established guidelines in setting the

limits to ensure that these statutory criteria were met. Also, 1996 revisions to section 41712

require that consumer product regulations not eliminate a product form. These guidelines and

statutory criteria were followed in setting the proposed limits for the Mid-term Measures II

categories. A detailed discussion of the technical basis for each proposed limit is included in

Chapter VI of the Technical Support Document.

The Mid-term Measures II limits were targeted towards the lower volatile organic

compound (VOC) content technologies within a product category. In doing this, staff made sure

that the various product forms within each category would be preserved. In all categories

proposed for regulation, with the exception of the double phase aerosol air fresheners, there exist

products on the market which currently comply. For double phase aerosol air fresheners,

technology exists for achieving the proposed 20 percent VOC limit. We discuss below the

meaning of the terms “technologically feasible” and “commercially feasible.”

A. TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE

Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) requires the Board to adopt consumer product

regulations that are “technologically feasible”. Technological feasibility is a different concept than

"commercial feasibility", and does not take into account the cost of the complying product. The

staff believes that a proposed limit is technologically feasible if it meets at least one of the

following criteria: (1) the limit is already being met by at least one product within the same

category, or (2) the limit can reasonably be expected to be met in the time frame provided through

additional development efforts. With the exception of the double phase aerosol air fresheners, our

survey results show that products are currently marketed that comply with the proposed limits for

all of the product categories under consideration. In the case of double phase aerosol air

fresheners, reformulation options are available which will allow manufacturers to produce

complying products. As explained in Chapter VI, manufacturers can use exempt solvents such as

acetone and exempt propellants to reformulate these products, and staff has proposed an effective

date of December 31, 2004, to allow five years to develop viable air freshener formulations. 

Given the length of time and the possibilities for reformulation, staff believes that the proposed 20

percent VOC limit for this category is technologically feasible.
Volume II, Chapter III, Page 35

In setting the proposed limits for the Mid-term Measures II categories, staff made an

effort wherever possible to ensure that multiple reformulation technologies exist which would

allow products to comply. Proposed limits were set at VOC levels that staff determined could be

met without increased use of Toxic Air Contaminants or ozone-depleting compounds. General

reformulation options include addition of water with cosolvents, development of emulsion

products, use of low vapor pressure volatile organic compound solvents, use of non-VOC

propellants, and use of exempt solvents. Multiple reformulation options allow flexibility in the

design of compliant products, ensuring that efficacious, cost-effective products will be brought to

the marketplace. 

B. COMMERCIALLY FEASIBLE

Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) also requires the Board to adopt consumer

product regulations that are “commercially feasible”. The term “commercially feasible” is not

defined in State law. In interpreting this term, the staff has utilized the reasoning employed by the

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in interpreting the federal Clean Air

Act. In the leading case of International Harvester Company v. Ruckelshaus, (D.C. Cir. 1973)

478 F. 2d 615, the Court held that the United States Environmental Protection Agency could

promulgate technology-forcing motor vehicle emission limits which might result in fewer models

and a more limited choice of engine types for consumers, as long as the basic market demand for

new passenger automobiles could be generally met.

Following this reasoning, the staff has concluded that a regulation is “commercially

feasible” as long as the “basic market demand” for a particular consumer product can be met. 

“Basic market demand” is the underlying need of consumers for a product to fulfill a basic,

necessary function. This must be distinguished from consumer “preference”, which may be

towards specific attributes of a particular product. A “preference” is the choice of consumers for

a certain product or products based upon fragrance, cost, texture, etc. By way of example, a

consumer may need a glass cleaner to remove soils, grease, dirt or grime from their windows. 

Glass cleaners are formulated with glycol ether solvents or with ammonia. Consumers may

choose an ammoniated glass cleaner because they prefer the performance characteristics, or they

may choose a non-ammoniated glass cleaner because they dislike the smell of ammonia. This

distinction is not recognized by all parties. Some commenters have expressed the view that

consumers do not have a “basic market demand” for a general class of products, but that

consumers instead have a number of separate and distinct “basic market demands” for many

specialty products with differing characteristics. 

The ARB staff believes the consumer “preference” interpretation of “basic market

demand” is inconsistent with the reasoning from the International Harvester case. To adopt such

a narrow interpretation would be inconsistent with the clearly expressed legislative intent that

“...the state board shall adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in reactive

organic compounds emitted by consumer products...” (Health and Safety Code section 41712(a)). 

In order to achieve emission reductions, manufacturers of high VOC products which perform the
Volume II, Chapter III, Page 36

same basic function as lower VOC counterparts must reduce the VOCs in their products. It is

expected that when a product formulation changes, some attributes of the product will also

change. If ARB were to establish limits which accounted for every distinct feature of every

product, then each product would require a limit unto itself. Using this approach, it would be

difficult to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOC emissions because changes in

formulation would change product features.

Every currently marketed product has some unique features that differentiate it from other

products. Consumers who purchase a product have demonstrated a preference over other

competing products. This distinction between “preference” and “basic market demand” was

clearly made in the International Harvester case. In the International Harvester case, the court

stated that the proposed emissions limits would be feasible even though they might result in the

unavailability of certain kinds of vehicles and engine types people preferred 

(e.g. fast “muscle” cars), as long as the basic market demand for passenger cars could be generally

met. Applying this principle to consumer products, the proposed amendments allow the basic

market demand to be met for each product category, even though it may no longer be possible to

manufacture products with some specific attributes. The ARB staff believe that this approach

complies with section 41712.

Table III-1 below lists the proposed VOC limits for each category, the emission

reductions, and the number and market share of products that currently comply with the proposed

limits. The total emission reductions from the proposed limits is 19.5 tons per day. Including the

reduction credit in the nail polish remover category due to the exemption of acetone, the total

statewide emission reductions due to the regulation are 21 tons per day based on the 1997 survey

results. This represents an overall emission reduction of 39 percent from the Mid-term Measures

II categories. The variation in complying market share reflects the fact that each limit is

developed independently based on the available reformulation options.
Volume II, Chapter III, Page 37

Table III-1

Limits, Complying Products, and Complying Marketshare

Product Category VOC VOC Limit Percent and Percent Share

(Effective Date) Content (wt%) Reduction Complying (%)

Sales Emission Complying

Weighted Reduction Products/ Complying

Average Proposed (tpd) and Total Prod. Market

VOC Number of

Construction, Panel and Flooring Adhesives 

 All Forms (12/31/02) 22% 15% 0.44 29/74 17%

44% 39%

Sealant and Caulking Compounds

 All Forms (12/31/02) 3% 4% 0.79 259/361 69%

42% 72%

Automotive Brake Cleaners

 Aerosols (12/31/02) 42% 45% 0.29 37/82 40%

6% 45%

 All Other Forms 49% 45% 0.02 14/37 42%

 (12/31/02) 6% 38%

Carburetor or Fuel Injection Air Intake Cleaners

 Aerosols (12/31/02) 68% 45% 2.14 4/61 5%

34% 7%

 All Other Forms 43% 45% 0.05 3/12 >50%

 (12/31/02) 22% 25%

Engine Degreasers

 Aerosols (12/31/04) 34% 35% 0.37 14/48 46%

22% 29%

 All Other Forms 1% 5% 0.05 11/22 96%

 (12/31/04) 63% 50%

Aerosol General Purpose Degreasers (reductions from aerosol solvents parts cleaners)

 Aerosols (1/1/02) 97% 50% 0.36 2/12 <10%

49% 17%

Tire Sealants and Inflators

 All Forms (12/31/02) 21% 20% 0.32 4/13 50%

36% 31%
Volume II, Chapter III, Page 38

Product Category VOC VOC Limit Percent and Percent Share

(Effective Date) Content (wt%) Reduction Complying (%)

Sales Emission Complying

Weighted Reduction Products/ Complying

Average Proposed (tpd) and Total Prod. Market

VOC Number of

Auto Windshield Washer Fluids - Non Type A Areas

 All Forms (12/31/02) unknown 1% 7.42 30 50

89% 55%

Flying Bug Insecticides

 Aerosols (12/31/03) 30% 25% 0.11 7/43 13%

18% 16%

Lawn and Garden Insecticides

 Non-aerosols 1% 3% 0.35 139/157 99%

(12/31/03) 26% 89%

Crawling Bug Insecticides

 Aerosols (12/31/04) 28% 15% 0.49 13/62 15%

13% 21%

General Purpose Cleaners (non-Aerosols) 

 Ready To Use 2% 3% 1.05 121/182 61%

(12/31/04) 33% 66%

 Dilutables (12/31/04) .01% 1% 0.41 329/384 99.9%

9% 86%

General Purpose Degreasers (non-Aerosols) 

 Ready To Use 22% 3% 0.15 35/95 28%

(12/31/04) 16% 37%

 Dilutables (12/31/04) .5% 1% 0.41 132/199 83%

38% 66%

Glass Cleaners (non-Aerosols) 

 Ready To Use 5% 4% 0.36 29/107 13%

(12/31/04) 16% 27%

 Dilutables (12/31/04) 2% 1% 0.82 22/73 31%

68% 30%

Furniture Maintenance Products

 Aerosols (12/31/04) 20% 17% 0.35 19/52 13%

18% 37%
Volume II, Chapter III, Page 39

Product Category VOC VOC Limit Percent and Percent Share

(Effective Date) Content (wt%) Reduction Complying (%)

Sales Emission Complying

Weighted Reduction Products/ Complying

Average Proposed (tpd) and Total Prod. Market

VOC Number of

Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners

 Aerosols (12/31/04) 30% 20% 1.54 0/19 0%

34% 0%

Hair Mousses

 All Forms (12/31/02) 9% 6% 0.33 39/137 27%

43% 28%

Nail Polish Removers

 All Forms (12/31/04) 21% 0% 0.85 19/54 30%

100% 35%

Total Emission Reductions (tpd) 19.5

Acetone Credit in Nail Polish Remover 1.5

Total Combined Reduction 21.0
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 40

IV.

EMISSIONS

California’s extreme air quality problems require unique strategies for meeting federal and

state ambient air quality standards. In this chapter we provide an overview of these air quality

problems and the need for significant emission reductions from all sources of air pollution. We

also describe the need for the regulation of consumer products and provide a detailed summary of

the emissions from the categories proposed for regulation.

A. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AND THE NEED FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions contribute to the formation of both ozone

and PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns equivalent aerodynamic diameter). Ozone

formation in the lower atmosphere results from a series of chemical reactions between VOCs and

nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. PM is the result of both direct and indirect 10

emissions. Direct sources of PM include emissions from fuel combustion and wind erosion of 10

soil. Indirect PM emissions result from the chemical reaction of VOCs, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 10

oxides and other chemicals in the atmosphere.

Ozone

VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. The

rate of ozone generation is related closely to the rate of VOC production (in the form of reactive

organic gases, or ROG) as well as the availability of NO in the atmosphere (U.S. EPA, 1996; x

Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). At low ambient concentrations, ozone is a colorless gas and the chief

component of urban smog. It is one of the state’s more persistent air quality problems. Air

quality data have revealed that 75 percent of the nation’s exposure to ozone occurs in California

(ARB, 1994a). As shown in Figure IV-1, the population-weighted average exposure to ozone

concentrations above the state ambient air quality standard (of 9 parts per hundred million) in the

South Coast Air Basin has been declining. However, despite this decline and nearly 25 years of

regulatory efforts, ozone continues to be an important environmental and health concern.

It has been well documented that ozone adversely affects the respiratory functions of

humans and animals. Human health studies show that short term exposure to even very low levels

of ozone injures the lung (ARB, 1997; U.S. EPA, 1996). Ozone is a strong irritant that can

cause constriction of the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work harder in order to

provide oxygen to the body. Besides shortness of breath, it can aggravate or worsen existing

respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and asthma (U.S. EPA, 1996).
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 41

Chronic exposure to ozone may cause permanent damage in deep portions of the lung. In

some animal studies, permanent structural changes due to long-term ozone exposure were noted. 

These changes remained even after periods of exposure to clean air (U.S. EPA, 1996). The ARB

is currently conducting a study to determine the effects of air pollution, including ozone, on lung

development. The “Epidemiologic Investigation to Identify Chronic Health Effects of Ambient

Air Pollutants in Southern California” is a long-term study which is documenting the lung

development of children in 12 cities in California. The air quality in these 12 communities varies

from good to moderate and poor, so any trends in lung development may be determined. 

Preliminary results of this on-going study do indicate that chronic exposure to polluted air slows

lung development, although no conclusions specific to ozone have been drawn.

Figure IV-1

Population-Weighted Exposure to Ozone Concentrations 

Above the State Ambient Air Quality Standard

Not only does ozone adversely affect human and animal health, but it also affects

vegetation throughout most of California resulting in reduced yield and quality in agricultural
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 42

crops and disfiguration or unsatisfactory growth in ornamental vegetation. During the summer,

ozone levels are often highest in the urban centers in Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley,

and Sacramento Valley, which are adjacent to the principal production areas in the state’s

multibillion dollar agricultural industry. ARB studies indicate that ozone pollution damage to

crops is estimated to cost agriculture over 300 million dollars annually (ARB, 1987a). Similarly,

the U.S. EPA estimates national agricultural losses to exceed 1 billion dollars annually 

(U.S. EPA, 1996).

PM10

Airborne particulate matter (PM ) is a solid or liquid substance with less than (<) 10

10 microns determined as the equivalent aerodynamic diameter. PM10 can be directly emitted into

the atmosphere as the result of anthropogenic actions such as fuel combustion or natural causes

such as wind erosion. Indirect PM10 is formed via a complex reaction involving a

gas-to-particulate matter conversion process in which VOCs can participate (Seinfeld and Pandis,

1998). The focus of this discussion will be on the indirect aerosol formation of PM10.

PM10 is composed of up to 35 percent aerosols which may be the result of atmospheric

chemical reactions of sulfate, nitrates, ammonium, trace metals, carbonaceous material (VOCs),

and water. The products of the gas-phase reactions may combine to form new particles (either

single or two or more vapor phase species) or increase existing particle growth by condensation

of VOCs (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). Furthermore, although the contribution from VOCs is not

known, carbonaceous aerosols generally account for a significant fraction of the fine (<2 micron

equivalent aerodynamic diameter) urban particulate matter. In Los Angeles, for example, aerosol

carbon alone accounts for about 40 percent of the total fine particulate mass (Seinfeld, 1989).

PM10, and specifically, its smaller fraction, PM2.5, are inhaled deep into the lungs, causing

significant adverse health effects. The particulate matter irritates the respiratory tract, and may

contain toxic as well as carcinogenic compounds (Godish, 1991). Epidemiologic evidence

indicate that certain populations are particularly sensitive to PM , including the elderly, persons 10

suffering from lung or cardiopulmonary disease, infants and children, and asthma sufferers. These

populations suffer a range of health effects. Among children, decrements in lung function occur,

leading to increased school absences, and asthmatic individuals may suffer from increased

respiratory symptoms. Among the elderly and in individuals suffering from cardiopulmonary

disease, exacerbations of chronic disease leading to increased hospital admissions are seen 

(U.S. EPA, 1997). PM also contributes to reduced visibility. 10

To protect California’s population from the harmful effects of ozone and PM , federal 10

and state air quality standards for these contaminants have been established. These standards are

shown in Table IV-1. The state hourly ozone standard is 9 parts per hundred million (pphm) and

the national hourly ozone standard is 12 pphm. The state PM standard for a 24 hour period is 10

50 micrograms per cubic meter (Fg/m ), and the national standard is 150 Fg/m over a 24 hour 3 3

period. 
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 43

Table IV-1

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and PM10

Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard National Standard

Ozone 1 hour 9 pphm 12 pphm

(180 Fg/m ) (235 Fg/m )

3 3

PM Annual Geometric Mean 30 Fg/m -------- 10

24 hour 50 Fg/m 150 Fg/m

Annual Arithmetic Mean ------- 50 Fg/m

3

3 3

3

In 1997, the U.S. EPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard. 

However, a recent court decision has put implementation of the new standard on hold until legal

challenges can be resolved. All major urban areas in California continue to violate the 

pre-existing one-hour federal ozone standard and the state ozone standard, and need additional

emission reductions in ozone precursors – such as VOC’s – to attain these health-based standards.

The U.S. EPA also recently adopted standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns

(PM2.5) in addition to the PM10 standards (U.S. EPA, 1997). PM2.5 consists of directly emitted

particulate matter, and secondary particulate matter such as nitrates, sulfates and condensibles

that are formed in the atmosphere from precursors such as NOx, ammonia, SOx and complex

hydrocarbons. Because PM2.5 is a subset of PM10, these precursors contribute to PM10 pollution

as well.

The recent court decision also affects the particulate matter standards. However,

U.S. EPA set the implementation schedule for the PM2.5 standards on a time line to allow the

agency to complete its next review of the particulate matter standards in 2002 prior to designating

non-attainment areas and requiring implementation plans for PM . With this lengthy time line, 2.5

we expect the legal challenges and uncertainty regarding the PM standards to be resolved. 2.5

Meanwhile, PM non-attainment areas will continue to implement their plans to attain the pre- 10

existing PM standards. 10

The vast majority of California’s population who live in urban areas breathe unhealthy air

for much of the year, as clearly shown in Figure IV-2 (ARB, 1998). Lastly, Figures IV-3 and 

IV-4 show that unhealthy levels of ozone and PM10, respectively, are not limited to just urban

areas, but can be found in nearly every county in California. As shown in these maps, 

41 counties are currently designated as nonattainment for the state ozone standard, while 

53 counties are designated as nonattainment for the state PM10 standard (ARB, 1999). These

counties contain over 97 and 99 percent, respectively, of California’s population, a clear

indication of the extent and magnitude of the ozone and PM problems in California. 10
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 44

Figure IV-2
Fresno

Yolo

Solano

Alameda

San Mateo

Santa Cruz

Santa Clara

Sonoma

Marin

Sonoma

Contra Costa

San Francisco

Napa

Solano

Merced

Monterey

San Luis Obispo

San Benito

Stanislaus

San Joaquin

Sacramento

Calaveras

Amador

Colusa

Tehama

Mendocino

Lake

Glenn

Del Norte

Humboldt Shasta

Trinity

Siskiyou

Nevada

Placer

Sutter

Yuba

El Dorado

Placer

Plumas

Butte

Lassen

Sierra

Modoc

Santa Barbara

Los Angeles

Ventura

Los Angeles

Riverside

San Diego

Orange

Imperial

Riverside

Riverside

San Bernardino

San Bernardino

Alpine

Madera

Kings

Kern

Mariposa

Tuolumne

El Dorado

Placer

Tulare

Kern

Inyo

Mono

South Central Coast

Mountain Counties

North Central Coast

San Francisco Bay Area

San Joaquin Valley

Northeast Plateau

Sacramento Valley

Mojave Desert

South Coast

San Diego

Lake Tahoe

Great Basin Valleys

Air Basin

Lake

County

North

Coast

Salton

Sea

County

 Unclassified

 Attainment

 Transitional

 Nonattainment

Miles

0 20 40 60

Area Designations for State

Ambient Air Quality Standards

OZONE

D

FIGURE 1

Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 45

Figure IV-3

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone
Fresno

Yolo

Solano

Alameda

San Mateo

Santa Cruz

Santa Clara

Sonoma

Marin

Sonoma

Contra Costa

San Francisco

Napa

Solano

Merced

Monterey

San Luis Obispo

San Benito

Stanislaus

San Joaquin

Sacramento

Calaveras

Amador

Colusa

Tehama

Mendocino

Lake

Glenn

Del Norte

Humboldt Shasta

Trinity

Siskiyou

Nevada

Placer

Sutter

Yuba

El Dorado

Placer

Plumas

Butte

Lassen

Sierra

Modoc

Santa Barbara

Los Angeles

Ventura

Los Angeles

Riverside

San Diego

Orange

Imperial

Riverside

Riverside

San Bernardino

San Bernardino

Alpine

Madera

Kings

Kern

Mariposa

Tuolumne

El Dorado

Placer

Tulare

Kern

Inyo

Mono

South Central Coast

Mountain Counties

North Central Coast

San Francisco Bay Area

San Joaquin Valley

Northeast Plateau

Sacramento Valley

Mojave Desert

South Coast

San Diego

Lake Tahoe

Great Basin Valleys

Lake

County

North

Coast

Salton

Sea

 Air Basin

 County

 Unclassified

 Attainment

 Transitional

 Nonattainment

Miles

0 20 40 60

Area Designations for State

Ambient Air Quality Standards

PM 10

D

FIGURE 5

Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 46

Figure IV-4

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 47

B. WHY REGULATE CONSUMER PRODUCTS?

Over the past 25 years, air pollution agencies in California have been working diligently to

improve air quality. Much of the effort was directed to the more traditional sources of air

pollution such as mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, etc.) and stationary sources (e.g., factories,

power plants, etc.). There have been dramatic gains in reducing emissions from these traditional

sources. However, to continue to make progress toward meeting the state and federal ambient air

quality standards and protecting the public health of California citizens, there is a need for further

reductions from other sources of emissions including consumer products. Also, as emissions from

the traditional sources are further reduced, emissions from all other sources, including consumer

products, have become more significant. Therefore, the emissions from these sources must be

evaluated for possible reductions.

Consumer products comprise an important source of emissions in California because they

are widely distributed, emit VOCs when used, and contribute to the air pollution problem in

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

the total number of users (e.g., about 34 million people) in California is aggregated, the total

VOC emissions become significant. As the population in California continues to grow, the VOC

emissions from consumer products will also grow.

Recognizing the importance of the potential impact of VOC emissions from consumer

products, the California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (the Act). 

The Act declared that attainment of the California state ambient air quality standards is necessary

to promote and protect public health, particularly the health of children, older people, and those

with respiratory diseases. The Act added section 41712 to the California Health and Safety Code

(HSC), which requires the ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction

in VOCs emitted by consumer products. As part of the regulatory process, the ARB must

determine that adequate data exist to adopt the regulations. The ARB must also determine that

the regulations are technologically and commercially feasible, necessary, and do not eliminate any

product form. To date, VOC standards for 80 categories of consumer products (including

antiperspirants and deodorants and aerosol coatings (35 categories)) have been established to

meet the requirements of the Act.

The 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone projects that an 85 percent reduction

in consumer products emissions (from the 1990 baseline year) is necessary to attain the federal

ozone standard in the South Coast Air Basin. The consumer products regulations as a whole

have not yet achieved emission reductions approaching this 85 percent goal. The current

regulations will achieve a 40 percent reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products by the

year 2005. Since much greater additional reductions are necessary to attain the federal ozone

standard, the reductions from the Mid-term Measures II proposal are therefore “necessary” within

the meaning of section 41712 of the HSC. In addition, section 41712(b)(1) of the HSC provides

that a regulation’s “necessity” is to be evaluated in terms of both the state and federal standards. 

The 1994 Ozone SIP only addresses the ARB’s commitments to achieve the federal 1-hour air
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 48

quality standard for ozone. Both the federal 8-hour ozone standard and the state ozone standard

are more stringent than the federal 1-hour standard, and will require even greater emission

reductions to achieve attainment.

The applicable state and federal law show that both the U.S. Congress and the California

Legislature intended progress toward clean air to be made as quickly as possible. The Act

specifically declares that it is the intent of the Legislature that the state air quality standards be

achieved “...by the earliest practicable date...” (see HSC, sections 40910 and 40913(a); see also

the uncodified section 1(b)(2) of the Act (Stats. 1988, Chapter 1568)). A similar intent is

expressed in the federal Clean Air Act, which declares that the federal air quality standards are to

be achieved “...as expeditiously as practicable...” (see sections 172(a)(2), 181(a), and 188(c) of

the federal Clean Air Act). For all of the reasons described above, the proposed amendments are

“necessary” within the meaning of HSC section 41712.

Achieving significant VOC reductions from consumer products is a key element of the SIP

(ARB, 1994b, 1994c, 1994d, 1994e). The SIP was adopted by the ARB on November 15, 1994,

and serves as California's overall long-term plan for the attainment of the federal ambient air

quality standard for ozone by early next century. Together with significant reductions from

stationary industrial facilities, mobile sources (e.g., cars, trains, boats), and other area sources

(e.g., architectural and industrial maintenance coatings), the reductions in the consumer products

element of the SIP are an essential part of California's effort to attain the air quality standards for

ozone. The 80 product categories currently being regulated represent our near-term measures

and a portion of our mid-term measures commitment in the SIP. Based upon the settlement of

the SIP lawsuit (See Chapter I), the 17 product categories with proposed VOC limits makes

further progress toward our mid-term measures commitment. Through the implementation of

these measures, we will continue to make progress toward meeting California’s SIP commitment

for ozone attainment.

The VOC reductions from consumer products are an important component of local air

pollution control district plans to attain the federal ozone standard and meet the rate-of-progress

requirements under the federal Clean Air Act. For example, in the South Coast Air Basin where a

large portion of the California population resides, the VOC emissions are substantial, reflecting

the size of the regional pollution problem there. The 1990 baseline inventory of VOCs for the

South Coast Air Basin was 1,517 tons per day (ARB, 1994b). In order to reach attainment of the

federal ozone standard in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010, the VOC emissions must be

reduced by 1,194 tons per day, or about 75 percent of the 1990 baseline inventory. In Ventura

County and the Sacramento Metropolitan Area, the 1990 baseline VOC inventory was 87 and 222

tons per day, respectively (ARB, 1994b). To reach attainment of the federal ozone standard in

both areas by 2005, the VOC emissions must be reduced by 42 (about 50 percent) and

85 (about 40 percent) tons per day, respectively.
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 49

C. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND MID-TERM

MEASURES II CATEGORIES

Emission Estimates for Consumer Products

The 1994 SIP estimated the VOC emissions from consumer products to be about 265 tons

per day in 1990, or 15 percent of the total stationary source emissions. These data are shown in

Figure IV-5. New estimates developed from recent surveys, however, indicate that consumer

product emissions were actually about 326 tpd in 1990, so their percentage of the stationary

source emissions may be even greater than predicted in the 1994 SIP. If left uncontrolled, their

relative contribution to the total smog-forming emissions will increase as California’s population

continues to grow and the emissions from mobile and stationary sources are increasingly

regulated.

Figure IV-5

Stationary Source VOC Emissions

(per 1994 SIP), 

1,800 Tons Per Day in 1990

Consumer Products Inventory Development

During the development of the first mid-term measures consumer products regulation, it

became apparent that the available data on VOC emissions and speciation of the VOCs were

lacking in many areas of the consumer products emissions inventory. An update to the inventory
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 50

was needed in order to assess the possibility of further emission reductions from consumer

products and to track the progress of previous consumer product regulations toward achieving

the 85 percent reduction commitment. Recognizing this need, the Board, at the July 1997 

mid-term measures hearing, directed staff to develop a detailed, comprehensive inventory.

We formed an inventory task group with members of the consumer products industry in

October 1997, to discuss the methodology of performing the update. Industry members in the

task group were initially opposed to conducting a labor-intensive, large scale survey. The task

group agreed that we should first conduct a study based upon previous surveys to identify areas

with data gaps. 

We began this study by compiling all available survey data from previous regulatory

efforts. Using the 1990 U.S. EPA consumer products survey, the 1990 and 1991 ARB consumer

products surveys, and the 1994/1995 mid-term measures survey, a preliminary inventory was

developed for the 1990 emissions. This enabled us to identify consumer products categories

requiring additional data. Presented to industry members at the January 14, 1998, consumer

products meeting, the study highlighted both the lack of data and the need to better quantify

consumer product emissions. The task group then agreed that a comprehensive survey of the

consumer products industry was necessary to update the SIP inventory.

1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey

The 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (Survey) was mailed to over 

3,000 companies at the end of February 1998. The survey requested data on about 

100 categories of consumer products. Based on previous efforts, the emissions from these

categories were estimated to account for over 70 percent of the entire consumer products

inventory. The results of the Survey, in conjunction with the 1997 aerosol coatings survey, are

estimated to account for over 80 percent of the entire inventory. The remaining 20 percent of the

emissions are from numerous small categories. Because the 1990 U.S. EPA survey included these

categories, we decided that it would not be necessary to resurvey them.

Extensive outreach efforts were made to maximize the market coverage of the 1997

Survey. First, we performed numerous shelf surveys, conducted trade journal and Internet

searches and scrutinized previous surveys to identify manufacturers and add them to our mailing

list. Following the Survey, shelf surveys were again performed, and the list of responding

companies was scrutinized by trade associations and survey respondents to identify additional

companies which had not responded. Non-responding companies were contacted and

subsequently submitted surveys. The extensive outreach resulted in an estimated 90 percent

market coverage in most categories.

The Survey requested detailed information on the formulations of consumer products,

including complete speciation of VOC’s and key exempt ingredients as well as total volumes of

low vapor pressure VOC’s (LVP-VOC’s), and inorganic and exempt compounds. Information on
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 51

sales, product form, customer types, and company economics and size were also requested. Due

to the complexity of the data, we thoroughly reviewed incoming surveys to ensure accuracy prior

to entry in the database. When inconsistencies were found, we contacted the survey respondents

and made the necessary corrections. Many corrections were made to formulation data to

appropriately classify compounds as VOC’s, LVP-VOCs, exempt compounds, or inorganic

compounds. Prior to entry into the consumer products database, we made every effort to correct

the Survey data.

To further ensure the accuracy of the Survey data, we provided extensive summaries to

industry detailing the aggregate sales, VOC speciation, VOC tonnage, and other key information. 

Summary tables were also provided (scrambled to protect confidentiality) detailing VOC content,

product form, LVP-VOC content, and other information. The results of the Survey were

discussed in workshops, and comments from industry were used to correct inaccuracies in the

data.

To minimize the burden to industry, we developed software to allow manufacturers to

submit their surveys electronically. The software aided many manufacturers in reporting large

numbers of products and also performed certain data checks automatically. We also developed

software to automate calculations of emissions, emission reductions, market coverage and other

frequently performed calculations.

Over 500 companies had responded to the Survey by December of 1998, reporting over

14,000 products sold in California. Based on the results of this Survey, and the aerosol coatings

and U.S. EPA surveys, the 1997 VOC emissions from consumer products are estimated to be

about 280 tons per day. Given the detailed information gathered in the Survey and the high

response rate, these data will also be used to update the SIP inventory.

Market Coverage Adjustments to the Survey

It is not possible for a survey of this magnitude to reach the entirety of the consumer

products industry. Therefore, the staff performed shelf surveys to adjust the emissions estimates

to reflect complete market coverage. Estimates were made based upon the number of products

on the shelves that were not reported in the Survey. Generally, we found about 1 of every 

10 products had not been reported. Hence, for most categories, the market coverage was

estimated to be about 90 percent.

Some market sectors have historically had a low response rate in previous surveys. For

example, automotive windshield washer fluids are frequently produced by small companies which

move in and out of the market, so tracking these companies and maintaining a complete mailing

list is difficult. For categories where the coverage was determined to be low, adjustments were

made by a variety of methods, including previous survey data, bar code data, estimates from

industry experts, etc. These special adjustments were made in only 8 of the 

100 categories surveyed.
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 52

Adjustments to the inventory to account for the incomplete market coverage inherent in

the survey process is not without precedent. The U.S. EPA , in compiling their emissions

estimates for their 1990 survey, increased the sales in most categories to account for incomplete

market coverage. In addition, the 1994/1995 Mid-term Measures Survey results were also

adjusted. Staff worked with industry members during the development of the mid-term measures

to determine the survey coverage, and made adjustments to many categories.

Emission Estimates for Mid-term Measures II Categories

The 1997 emissions from the 17 categories under consideration for the Mid-term

Measures II regulation is estimated to be 54 tons per day. Table IV-2 summarizes these

emissions. These categories are responsible for approximately 20 percent of the total consumer

product emissions.

Table IV-2

VOC Emissions by Product Category

Product Category (Tons/Day)

VOC Emissions Adjusted

Construction, Panel and Floor Covering Adhesives 1.00

Sealant and Caulking Compounds 1.87

Automotive Brake Cleaners (Non-aerosols) 0.34

Automotive Brake Cleaners (Aerosols) 5.26

Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake Cleaners 0.23

(Non-aerosols)

Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake Cleaners (Aerosols) 6.25

Engine Degreasers (Aerosols) 1.67

Engine Degreasers (Non-aerosols) 0.08

Solvent Parts Cleaners (Aerosols) - (included under aerosol 0.73

General Purpose Degreaser)

Tire Sealants and Inflators 0.89

Auto Windshield Washer Fluids 8.30

Flying Bug Insecticide (Aerosols) 0.60

Lawn and Garden Insecticides (Non-aerosols) 1.35
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 53

Product Category (Tons/Day)

VOC Emissions Adjusted

Crawling Bug Insecticides (Aerosols) 3.81

General Purpose Cleaners (Non-aerosols) - Ready-to-Use 3.18

General Purpose Cleaners - (Non-aerosols) - Dilutables 4.77

General Purpose Degreasers - (Non-aerosols) - Ready-to-Use 0.95

General Purpose Degreasers - (Non-aerosols) - Dilutables 1.09

Glass Cleaners - (Non-aerosols) - Ready-to-Use 2.27

Glass Cleaners - (Non-aerosols) - Dilutables 1.21

Furniture Maintenance Products (Aerosols) 1.98

Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners 4.57

Hair Mousses 0.76

Nail Polish Removers 0.85

Total 54

Adequate Data

 With our estimate of 90 percent market coverage for most categories in the Survey, we

feel confident that the Survey had full representation of the available technologies in the market

place. This assumption has been verified by discussions with manufacturers, category research

and the wide range of VOC content in the categories slated for regulation. Historically, the

market sector representing the lowest coverage is the “private label” sector. This market sector

does not manufacture products. They purchase products from manufacturers, then put their own

brand name on them. Those products generally use the same technology as other products made

by the manufacturer, and the ARB Survey had good coverage of manufacturers.

Staff has worked extensively with industry on all categories proposed for regulation. In

dealing with members of industry, extensive discussions on the types of technologies used in each

category have occurred. Numerous labels of products in each category were gathered, as well as

product literature. Category information was obtained from trade journals, Internet sites,

textbooks, and directly from manufacturers.
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 54

Adjustments for Lawsuit Commitments

The 1997 Survey results indicate that the VOC emissions from consumer products

predicted in the 1994 SIP inventory were underestimated. The Survey results indicate that VOC

emissions from consumer products in 1997 were about 280 tons per day. According to the 

1994 SIP, VOC emissions in 1997 should have been about 200 tons per day.

Under the SIP lawsuit agreement, the ARB has committed to adopt measures to achieve

42 tpd of ROG reductions in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in 2010, including measures in

1999 that would achieve 12 tons per day of ROG reductions. This proposed measure partially

fulfills the ARB’s ROG commitment. This commitment is based upon the SIP baseline inventory

of 265 tons per day in 1990. Equivalent VOC reductions based on the new inventory are

calculated by backcasting the Survey results to 1990 levels. This backcasting was performed

using the following methodology:

1. For all regulated categories, we estimated the uncontrolled emissions. This was done by

removing the control factor assigned for each category. For example, assume a category

was expected to have a reduction of 69 percent (control factor: 1 - 0.69 = 0.31). Then,

the uncontrolled emissions in 1997 would be 3.2 times higher (1/0.31) than the emissions

in the Survey.

2. Determine the total uncontrolled emissions in 1997. This is the sum of the emissions from

all unregulated categories, the regulated category emissions with control removed, and the

acetone, perchloroethylene (PERC) and volatile methyl siloxane (VMS) emissions from all

categories. Inclusion of the acetone, PERC and VMS emissions is necessary since these

exempt compounds were considered to be VOC’s in the 1990 inventory.

3. Remove emissions from area source categories from the 1997 Survey results. Categories

such as paint thinners, cold process roof cements and a portion of the adhesives and

sealants are already included in the SIP inventory under area source emissions. The

emissions from these categories must be removed from the consumer products inventory

to avoid double-counting.

4. Remove growth from 1997 to 1990. The 1994 SIP, in predicting the growth over this

period, used a statewide growth rate of 1.7 percent annually.

When these steps are performed, the uncontrolled emissions in 1990 are estimated to be 

about 326 tons per day. This figure is 23 percent higher than the emissions predicted in the 

1994 SIP. The lawsuit estimates are then factored up by 23 percent to account for the larger

inventory. In the lawsuit settlement agreement, the ARB estimated that a consumer products

measure would achieve 5 to 12 tons per day of ROG emission reductions in the SCAB in 2010. 

The 5 to 12 ton per day estimate in “1994 SIP currency” is actually 6 to 15 tons per day of ROG

emission reductions in the SCAB in 2010 based on the updated inventory using 1997 survey data.

REFERENCES 
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 55

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document. Effect of Ozone on Vegetation and Possible

Alternative Ambient Air Quality Standard. March, 1987a. (ARB, 1987a)

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document. Effects of Ozone on Health. September,

1987b. (ARB, 1987b)

Air Resources Board, Memorandum. National Exposure to Ozone. From Terry McGuire to

Michael H. Scheible. January 6, 1994a. (ARB, 1994a)

Air Resources Board. The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume I: Overview

of the California Ozone SIP. November 15, 1994b. (ARB, 1994b)

Air Resources Board. The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume II: The Air

Resources Board’s Mobile Source and Consumer Product Elements. November 15, 1994c. 

(ARB, 1994c)

Air Resources Board. The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume III: Status of

Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection & Maintenance and Pesticide Control Measures. November

15, 1994d. (ARB, 1994d)

Air Resources Board. The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume IV: Local

Emission Control Plan and Attainment Demonstrations. November 15, 1994e. (ARB, 1994e)

Air Resources Board, 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey: Summary of Sales and

Emissions, March, 1999. (Survey)

Air Resources Board. Letter to Ms. Mary Nichols, United States Environmental Protection

Agency. ARB Comments on U.S. EPA Proposal for New, National Clean Air Goals and Policies.

March 11, 1997. (ARB, 1997)

Air Resources Board. The 1999 California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. May, 1998. 

(ARB, 1998)

Air Resources Board. Maps and Tables of the Area Designations for State and National Ambient

Air Quality Standards, and Expected Peak Day Concentrations and Designation Values. 

July, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

Godish, Thad. Air Quality. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, 1991. (Godish, 1991)

Seinfeld, John H. Urban Air Pollution: State of Science. Science, Volume 243, February, 1989,

pp. 745-752. (Seinfeld, 1989)

Seinfeld, John H., and Pandis, Spyros N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. John Wiley &
Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 56

Sons, New York, 1998. (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998)

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related

Photochemical Oxidants. July, 1996, Volume I and III. (U.S. EPA, 1996)

United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particulate Matter; Final Rule. Federal Register. July 18, 1997, Volume 62, Number 138. 

(U.S. EPA, 1997)
Volume II, Chapter V, Page 57

V.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE

CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION

In this chapter, we provide a plain English discussion of the proposed amendments to the

consumer products regulation, and explain the rationale for the amendments. Where applicable,

key terms or concepts involved in each amendment are described. The discussion in this chapter

is intended to satisfy the requirements of Government Code section 11343.2, which requires that

a noncontrolling “plain English” summary of the regulation be made available to the public. 

Amendments are being proposed to three sections in the regulation, section 94508,

“Definitions”, section 94509, “Standards for Consumer Products”, and section 94513, “Reporting

Requirements”. These are discussed below in some detail. No other amendments to the existing

regulations are being proposed and the existing regulatory provisions such as exemptions and test

methods will apply to the Mid-term Measures II categories as they apply to the currently

regulated product categories. A few of the more significant existing regulatory provisions that will

apply to the Mid-term Measures II categories are described briefly. However, for a more detailed

discussion of the existing regulatory requirements, the reader is directed to the Phase I and Phase

II Technical Support Documents, and the Mid-term Measures Initial Statement of Reasons (ARB,

1990; ARB, 1991; and ISOR, 1997).

A. DEFINITIONS (SECTION 94508)

Section 94508, “Definitions,” provides all the terms used in the regulation which are not

self-explanatory. The proposed Mid-term Measures II amendments include new or revised

definitions to help clarify and enforce the regulation. In Table V-1, we list five new definitions

proposed for addition. These include two definitions for new product categories proposed for

regulation, “Sealant and Caulking Compound” and “Tire Sealant and Inflator.” The three

additional new definitions listed in Table V-1 were needed to clarify terminology referenced in the

regulation. In Table V-2, we list nine existing definitions that are proposed for modification. In

Table V-3, we list two existing definitions that are proposed for deletion. 

Table V-1

New Definitions Proposed for Addition

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (pre-mixed)

Floor Seam Sealer

Sealant and Caulking Compound

Tire Sealant and Inflator

Waterproofer
Volume II, Chapter V, Page 58

Table V-2

Existing Definitions Proposed for Modification

Adhesive Automotive Windshield Washer 

Carburetor or Fuel-injection Fluid (dilutable)

Air Intake Cleaner Construction and Panel Adhesive

Existing Product Fabric Protectant

General Purpose Adhesive General Purpose Degreaser

Lubricant

Table V-3

Existing Definitions Proposed for Deletion

 Metallic Parts Cleaner Household Sealants and Caulking Compounds

We are proposing to modify the “Fabric Protectant” definition to clarify the intent of the

definition and to make the definition more enforceable. Products which are designed for use

solely on leather products, such as shoes, belts, or handbags, are proposed to be excluded from

the definition. Additionally, we are replacing the phrase “silicone-based products whose function

is to provide water repellency” with the term “waterproofer”. We have proposed a new definition

for waterproofer to include any product that is exclusively designed and labeled for water

repellency.

B. LIMITS AND REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 94509)

The proposed regulatory action would amend the existing consumer products regulation

by adding product category definitions and VOC limits for two new categories, and by adding

more stringent VOC limits for 15 existing categories. Some of these categories are split into

subcategories for a total of 21 VOC limits. For example, the “Engine Degreaser” category is

subcategorized into “aerosols” and “non-aerosols”. The new or modified VOC limits would

become effective from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2004, depending on the product

category. We are also proposing to repeal the 10 percent limit for non-aerosol general purpose

degreasers scheduled to become effective on January 1, 2001. This existing limit would be

replaced with a more stringent three percent VOC limit for ready-to-use products, and a one

percent VOC limit for dilutable products, that would become effective on December 31, 2004. 

For clarification purposes, we are proposing to list the categories and VOC limits in alphabetical

order instead of by rulemaking action (e.g., Phase I, etc.). 

The definition of VOC is contained in section 94508 (125) of the regulation, and includes most

solvents and propellants used in consumer products. The VOC definition does not include, for

example, inorganic solids, water, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,

and the propellant HFC-152a. There are three proposed effective dates by which the Mid-term

Measures II categories must meet specified VOC content limits: December 31, 2002; 

December 31, 2003; and December 31, 2004. Seven standards would have an effective date of 
Volume II, Chapter V, Page 59

December 31, 2002, two standards would have an effective date of December 31, 2003, and

twelve standards would have an effective date of December 31, 2004. 

Table V-4 

Proposed VOC Limits and Effective Dates

Product Category VOC Limit Effective Date

Automotive Brake Cleaners 45 12/31/2002

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids

 All non-Type A areas 1 12/31/2002

Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners 45 12/31/2002

Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives 15 12/31/2002

Crawling Bug Insecticides

(aerosols) 15 12/31/2004

Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners 20 12/31/2004

Engine Degreasers

(aerosols) 35 12/31/2004

(non-aerosols) 5 12/31/2004

Flying Bug Insecticides

(aerosols) 25 12/31/2003

Furniture Maintenance Products

(aerosols) 17 12/31/2004

General Purpose Cleaners (non-aerosols)

(dilutables) 1 12/31/2004

(ready-to-use) 3 12/31/2004

General Purpose Degreasers (non-aerosols)

(dilutables) 1 12/31/2004

(ready-to-use) 3 12/31/2004

Glass Cleaners (non-aerosols)

(dilutables) 1 12/31/2004

(ready-to-use) 4 12/31/2004

Hair Mousses 6 12/31/2002

Lawn and Garden Insecticides

(non-aerosols) 3 12/31/2003

Nail Polish Removers 0 12/31/2004

Sealants and Caulking Compounds 4 12/31/2002

Tire Sealants and Inflators 20 12/31/2002

We are proposing to modify section 94509 (b)(1) to clarify that the dilution provision does

not apply to “Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid” products sold in containers with a capacity

greater than one quart. We are also proposing to add section 94509(k) to specify that consumer

products that will be included in the carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaner and 
Note that the provisions relating to boiling point have not yet been approved by 1

the Office of Administrative Law and are not yet legally effective.

Volume II, Chapter V, Page 60

construction, panel, and flooring covering adhesive category definitions for the first time under

this rulemaking action will not be subject to VOC limits that are currently in effect.

C. OTHER SECTIONS (SECTIONS 94510-94517)

Although we are only proposing a modification to section 94513, “Reporting

Requirements”, all of the provisions in sections 94510 through 94517 of the regulation apply to

manufacturers of products in the Mid-term Measures II categories. These provisions include: 

exemptions, innovative products provision, administrative requirements, registration, variance

provision, test methods, severability, and federal enforceability. We have provided a brief

discussion highlighting some of the exemptions, innovative products provision, administrative

requirements, and the variance provisions. For a more comprehensive discussion on these

sections and for information on sections not discussed here, please see the Phase I and Phase II

Technical Support Documents and the California Consumer Products Regulation 

(ARB, 1990; ARB, 1991; and ARB, 1997).

Exemptions

There are four exemptions in section 94510 which will be of interest to manufacturers,

distributors, and retailers of products in the Mid-term Measures II categories. These include: 

the manufacturer’s exemption, the distributor’s exemption, the fragrance exemption, and the low

vapor pressure volatile organic compound (LVP-VOC) exemption. 

C Manufacturer’s Exemption. The manufacturer’s exemption excludes from the

consumer products regulation those products that are manufactured in California

for shipment and use outside of California. 

C Products sold in California but intended for use outside of California. This

exemption allows distributors or manufacturers to sell, supply or offer for sale a

non-complying product if the product is to be shipped, sold, and used outside of

California. 

C Fragrance Exemption. This exemption allows up to 2 weight percent fragrance in

a consumer product to be exempt from the VOC limits specified in section

94509(a). 

C LVP-VOC Exemption . This exemption specifies that the limits specified in section 1

94509(a) do not apply to LVP-VOCs. A LVP-VOC is a volatile organic

compound which contains at least one carbon atom and meets one of the following

criteria: has a vapor pressure less than 0.1 millimeter of Mercury at 

20 C; has more than 12 carbon atoms, if the vapor pressure is unknown; has a o
Volume II, Chapter V, Page 61

boiling point greater than 216 C; or is the weight percent of a chemical “mixture” o

that boils above 216 C. o

Innovative Products Provision

The innovative products provision (section 94511) exempts a consumer product from the

VOC limits specified in section 94509(a) if a manufacturer demonstrates by clear and convincing

evidence that, due to some characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery systems or

other factors, the use of the product will result in less VOC emissions than a representative

consumer product that complies with the VOC limit or the calculated VOC emissions from a

noncomplying representative product, if the product has been reformulated to comply with the

VOC limit.

Administrative Requirements

The Administrative Requirements Section, section 94512, sets forth the “most restrictive

limit” provision and the code-dating requirements. 

C Most Restrictive Limit. If a product could be classified in two separate categories,

then the product must comply with the category with the most restrictive VOC

limit.

C Code-dating. Each manufacturer of a consumer product subject to

section 94509(a) must display on each consumer product container or package the

day, month, and year on which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating

such date. This date or code shall be displayed on each consumer product

container or package no later than 12 months prior to the effective date of the

applicable standard specified in section 94509(a) in the consumer products

regulation.

Reporting Requirements

Several revisions are proposed for section 94513, “Reporting Requirements.” Basically,

these revisions would expand and consolidate the reporting requirements for consumer products

that contain perchloroethylene or methylene chloride, and would delete obsolete reporting

requirements for hairsprays. We are proposing to: (1) modify subsection (e), “Special Reporting

Requirements for Perchloroethylene-Containing Consumer Products that are subject to the Phase

I or Phase II VOC Standards”; (2) delete subsection (f), “Special Reporting Requirements for 

Hairsprays”; and (3) delete subsection (g), “Special Reporting Requirements for Consumer

Products that Contain Methylene Chloride or Perchloroethylene, and are subject to the Phase III

VOC Standards.”
Volume II, Chapter V, Page 62

We are proposing to modify the reporting requirements under Subsection (e) to include all

consumer products containing methylene chloride or perchloroethylene, regardless of the date the

standard for the product category is adopted. It would require the responsible party for any

consumer product subject to section 94509(a), which contains perchloroethylene or methylene

chloride in amounts of 1.0 percent or more by weight, to submit annual reports to the ARB

beginning with the year 2000 and ending with the year 2011. The annual reports, which provide

information for one calendar year, will be due by March 1 of the following year (e.g. the annual

report for the calendar year January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 will be due March 1, 2001). 

The annual reports will include information on the sales and formulations of products containing

methylene chloride and/or perchloroethylene, and will allow ARB staff to track the use of these

compounds. 

Note that the existing reporting requirements under subsection (e) will be in effect until

the proposed amendments become legally effective (which is expected in late 2000). As such,

reporting for the 1999 calendar year will be due on March 1, 2000, under the existing provisions

of subsection (e).

Subsection (f), which applies to special reporting requirements for hairsprays, is obsolete

and has been deleted. This subsection required responsible parties for hairsprays with a VOC

content of greater than 55 percent by weight, to submit compliance plans outlining how they

would achieve compliance with the June 1, 1999, 55 percent VOC limit for hairsprays. The

compliance plans are no longer required because the limit is now in effect. However, this

amendment is not intended to prevent ARB staff from taking enforcement actions over failure to

submit previously required plans. Companies that failed to submit such plans on time will remain

legally responsible for this failure, because deleting these requirements now does not change the

regulations that were on the books when the plans were due.

Subsection (g) pertained to special reporting requirements for Phase III consumer

products that contain methylene chloride or perchloroethylene. Because subsection (e) has been

modified to include reporting of all methylene chloride or perchloroethylene-containing consumer

products, regardless of which phase of the consumer products regulation they are subject to, this

subsection is no longer necessary and has been deleted.

However, the reporting requirements under subsection (g) will be in effect until the

proposed amendments become legally effective (which is expected in late 2000). As such,

reporting for the 1999 calendar year for Phase III product categories with initial effective dates of

January 1, 2001, will be due on March 1, 2000, under the provisions of subsection (g).

Variances

If a manufacturer cannot comply with the requirements set forth in section 94509, because

of reasons beyond their reasonable control, they may apply for additional time to reformulate

under the variance provision in section 94514. A variance will only be granted if all of the

following three criteria are met: (1) because of reasons beyond the reasonable control of the
Volume II, Chapter V, Page 63

applicant, requiring compliance with section 94509 would result in extraordinary economic

hardship; (2) the public interest in mitigating the extraordinary hardship to the applicant by issuing

the variance outweighs the public interest in avoiding any increased emissions of air contaminants

which would result from issuing the variance; and (3) the compliance report proposed by the

applicant can reasonably be implemented, and will achieve compliance as expeditiously as

possible.

REFERENCES

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products, Technical Support

Document”, August 1990. (ARB, 1990)

State of California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division, “Proposed Regulation to Air

Resources Board, “Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California

Consumer Products Regulation”, June 6, 1997. (ISOR, 1997)

State of California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division, “Proposed Amendments to

the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions form Consumer

Products - Phase II”, October 1991. (ARB, 1991)

The California Consumer Products Regulation (Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division

3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5, Article 2, Sections 94507-04517). Amended March 1997.

(ARB, 1997)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 64

VI.

DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT CATEGORIES

In this chapter, we provide for each of the Mid-term Measures II product categories: 

1) a product category description; 2) information on product use and marketing; 3) information

on the product formulations; 4) a discussion of the proposed volatile organic compound (VOC)

limit, our rationale for the proposed limit, and the options for compliance; and 5) if applicable, a

discussion of the issues associated with the proposed VOC limit, as raised by some of the affected

industry. The product categories are in alphabetical order.

A. Automotive Brake Cleaners

Product Category Description:

Automotive brake cleaners are designed to remove oil, grease, brake fluid, brake pad

material, and dirt from motor vehicle brake mechanisms. These products are sometimes also

labeled for use in cleaning dirt or grease from other motor vehicle parts. 

Automotive brake cleaners were regulated under “Phase II” of the consumer products

regulation adopted in January of 1992, and a description of these products is also included in the

staff report for that item (ARB, 1991). At that time, the Board adopted a 50 percent VOC limit

for these products which was effective on January 1, 1997.

Table VI-1 below summarizes the sales and emissions from automotive brake cleaners

based on the results of the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey

(ARB, 1998). As shown in Table VI-1, automotive brake cleaners are sold in both the aerosol

and liquid forms, with the aerosol form dominating the market. Automotive brake cleaners are

one of the larger emissions sources in this regulatory effort, with estimated VOC emissions of

about 5.6 tons per day (11,200 pounds per day) in California. In addition, there is a possibility

that the VOC emissions could increase if Toxic Air Contaminants such as perchloroethylene are

regulated in the future. ARB staff is currently investigating options for an airborne toxic control

measure (ATCM) for automotive consumer products containing chlorinated compounds such as

perchloroethylene and methylene chloride. If the use of these compounds is limited in the future,

manufacturers may replace some of the four tons per day of perchloroethylene and three tenths of

a ton per day of methylene chloride used in brake cleaners with VOC solvents.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 65

Table VI-1

Automotive Brake Cleaners*

Product Form Products (lbs/day) (lbs/day)**

Number of Category Sales Emissions

Adjusted VOC

Aerosol 37 25,000 10,600

Liquid 82 1,380 600

Total 119 26,380 11,200

 * Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

 ** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:

Automotive brake cleaners are used by both “do-it-yourself” and professional mechanics.

These products are used on both disc and drum brake components such as drums, rotors, brake

cylinders, linings, and springs (Kar). 

Aerosol brake cleaners are typically sprayed on the entire brake assembly prior to repairs

to remove gross oil, grease, or other contaminants. However, some manufacturers recommend

that their products not be used on rubber parts and brake pads or linings (Kar, Ford). Brake

cleaners are also used on individual components after disassembly, often to remove greasy

fingerprints or other contaminants from friction surfaces. 

Liquid brake cleaners are used primarily by mechanics. When using these products,

mechanics disassemble brake components and immerse them in the liquid product for several

minutes or longer. The product may be used repeatedly until it becomes too dirty, and must be

replenished. 

Some liquid products are water-based formulations used in portable “bird-bath” brake

cleaning systems. These systems generally consist of a reservoir of the cleaning solution with a

collection pan on top and a nozzle and brush (Clayton; Citation). Mechanics typically spray down

the entire brake assembly with these systems and use the brush as necessary to clean the brake

components. The dirty solution drips off the brake assembly and is collected in the pan and routed

into the reservoir which may be filtered or skimmed to remove brake dust and oil, extending the

life of the cleaning solution.

Automotive brake cleaners are sold primarily in auto parts stores, hardware stores, and by

mass merchandisers. Manufacturers or distributors may also sell these products directly to large

customers such as auto repair facilities, car dealerships, and companies that maintain their own

vehicle fleets. Manufacturers of traditional solvent-based aerosol brake cleaners typically offer

both a chlorinated and a nonchlorinated brake cleaner. Manufacturers have stated that the
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 66

chlorinated formulations are designed to give customers a nonflammable product, while the

nonchlorinated products may not need to be disposed of as a hazardous waste. The

nonchlorinated products constitute the majority of sales.

Product Formulation:

Automotive brake cleaners are typically composed almost entirely of solvents designed to

remove grease, oil, and other contaminants from brake parts. As mentioned above, most

manufacturers of traditional brake cleaners offer both a chlorinated and nonchlorinated

formulation.

The chlorinated brake cleaners are most often composed entirely of perchloroethylene,

with aerosols using a small amount of carbon dioxide propellant. However, as reported in ARB’s

consumer products survey, some perchloroethylene-containing formulations also contain

methylene chloride and/or VOC solvents. Since both perchloroethylene and methylene chloride

are exempt solvents, these products are generally below the proposed 45 percent VOC limit.

The nonchlorinated brake cleaners generally contain a variety of solvents, including

acetone, toluene, methanol, hexane, heptane, and xylene (ARB, 1999). In addition, the aerosols

generally contain a carbon dioxide propellant, although hydrocarbon propellants are also used in

some products. Most of the nonchlorinated formulations comply with the current 50 percent

VOC limit with a combination of acetone and carbon dioxide propellant. However, some

formulations also incorporate water in the formulation. There are also some very low VOC

water-based surfactant formulations used in the “bird-bath” brake cleaning systems mentioned

earlier. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The proposed VOC limit for automotive brake cleaners, both aerosol and liquid forms is

45 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2002. As shown in Table VI-2, using adjusted

1997 emissions, the proposed limit will result in an estimated emission reduction of 620 pounds

per day or 0.31 tons per day (0.16 tpd in the South Coast Air Quality Management District in

2010). 

Table VI-2 also shows that 40 percent of the market currently complies with the proposed

45 percent VOC limit. However, most of the complying products contain perchloroethylene or

methylene chloride. After products containing either perchloroethylene or methylene chloride are

removed from consideration, the complying market share is about four percent. The products

that make up the four percent complying market share are aqueous or acetone-based

formulations. 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 67

Table VI-2

Automotive Brake Cleaners Proposal*

Product VOC Limit Complying Market Share Emissions Reductions

Form (wt. %) Products (%) (lbs/day)**

Proposed Complying

Aerosol 45 37 40 580

Liquid 45 14 42 40

Total 45 51 40 620

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

The proposed 45 percent VOC limit is designed to allow manufacturers to reformulate

their products without using perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. Since the 45 percent limit

is close to the current 50 percent VOC limit, manufacturers can achieve compliance with

relatively minor reformulation changes. Chlorinated and aqueous liquid formulations generally

already comply with the proposed 45 percent limit, so this discussion will focus on the

nonchlorinated solvent-based formulations. These products are expected to comply with the

proposed 45 percent limit by increasing the percentage of acetone in their formulation 

(Berryman; CRC; Sherwin-Williams). The ARB approved the exemption of acetone as a VOC

due to its low reactivity (potential to form tropospheric ozone) on September 28, 1995. Acetone

is a quick-drying solvent that is currently used in most nonchlorinated brake cleaners to meet the

existing VOC limit. 

Other reformulation options that could be used by manufacturers to meet the proposed

limit include: (1) adding water and emulsifiers to a solvent-based system to create an emulsion;

(2) using alternative exempt solvents such as parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF), volatile methyl

siloxane (VMS) solvents, or methyl acetate; and (3) using exempt propellants such as carbon

dioxide or hydrofluorocarbon 152a (HFC-152a). However, as explained below, these options are

not as likely to be utilized as acetone. 

Regarding aqueous systems, microemulsion technology that could be used by brake

cleaners is discussed in the literature (Dow). In addition, there are some water-containing aerosol

formulations currently on the market that are well below the proposed limit. These products are

marketed as safer alternatives to the existing chlorinated and solvent-based formulations. 

However, manufacturers have reported difficulty in formulating these types of systems to meet

their customers’ expectations (Kar, 4/19/99; Kar, 4/29/99; Pennzoil). In addition, if

manufacturers switch to an aqueous aerosol system, they will probably replace their carbon

dioxide propellant with a hydrocarbon propellant due to the potential for corrosion when using

carbon dioxide with water. This would reduce the amount of usable product in the 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 68

container because the carbon dioxide propellant typically constitutes only about three to five

percent of the formulation by weight, compared to 15 to 25 percent for a hydrocarbon propellant.

PCBTF, VMS solvents, and methyl acetate are exempt compounds that could be used to

replace some of the existing VOC solvents in brake cleaners. However, PCBTF and the VMS

solvents are much more expensive than the solvents currently used in brake cleaners. Methyl

acetate is also more expensive than most of the solvents currently used and has properties similar

to acetone, making it an unlikely choice over acetone. 

Finally, exempt propellants could be used to lower the VOC content of aerosol brake

cleaners. Carbon dioxide is already used in most products. However for those manufacturers

using hydrocarbon propellants, they could significantly lower their VOC content by switching to

carbon dioxide. HFC-152a could also be used to lower the VOC content of aerosol brake

cleaners. However, it is more expensive than the carbon dioxide propellants generally used in

brake cleaners. In addition, if a manufacturer is currently using a carbon dioxide propellant,

switching from carbon dioxide to HFC-152a would increase the volume of the product taken up

by the propellant and reduce the amount of usable product (referred to as “concentrate”) in the

container.

Issues:

1. Issue: The proposed VOC limit for brake cleaners may encourage manufacturers to

reformulate their products using perchloroethylene or methylene chloride.

Response: As explained in the “Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance” section above, the

VOC limit is designed to allow manufacturers to reformulate their products without using

perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. Manufacturers are unlikely to add chlorinated

compounds to their nonchlorinated formulations because: (1) this would eliminate the benefits of

a nonchlorinated product; (2) they can readily reformulate with acetone or other exempt

compounds; and (3) the recognition of the potential health effects associated with

perchloroethylene and methylene chloride. Nevertheless, the reporting requirements in the

proposed amendments will allow ARB staff to track the use of perchloroethylene and methylene

chloride in brake cleaners, and detect any increases in the use of these compounds. ARB staff is

also currently investigating options for an ATCM for automotive consumer products containing

chlorinated compounds such as perchloroethylene and methylene chloride. 

2. Issue: ARB staff should propose a much lower VOC limit considering that zero or near

zero water-based formulations are available. 

Response: The zero and near zero water-based formulations are liquid products used in

the “bird-bath” brake cleaning systems, described previously. These systems would not be

feasible for “do-it-yourself” mechanics to purchase.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 69

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board. Technical Support Document. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - 

Phase II. October, 1991. (ARB, 1991)

Air Resources Board. 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. February 28, 1998. 

(ARB, 1998)

Air Resources Board. 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey Data Summaries.

February 8, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

Berryman Products, Incorporated. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. July 23, 1999.

(Berryman)

Citation. Internet Site. “http://www.citation.com.” viewed June 11, 1999. (Citation)

Clayton. Internet Site. “http://www.ntxtools.com.” viewed June 11, 1999 (Clayton)

CRC Industries, Incorporated. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. July 23, 1999. (CRC)

Dow Chemical Company. “Dow Announces Microemulsion Solvent Technology.” Spray

Technology and Marketing. November, 1994.

Ford Motor Company. Product label for “Ford Brake Parts Cleaner.” Ford Internal Ref. No.

147124 (Ford)

Kar Products. Product label for “Gold Line Brake Clean 84448.” (Kar)

Kar Products. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. April 19, 1999. (Kar, 4/19/99)

Kar Products. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. April 29, 1999. (Kar, 4/29/99)

Pennzoil. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. April 28, 1999. (Penzoil)

Sherwin Williams Company. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. July 21, 1999. 

(Sherwin-Williams)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 70

B. Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids

Product Category Description:

Automotive windshield washer fluids are liquid products designed for use in motor vehicle

windshield washer fluid systems either as an anti-freeze or for the purpose of cleaning, washing,

bug removal, or wetting the windshield. Some products also claim to add a coating to the

windshield that repels water, bugs, dirt and grime (Unelko product label, Prestone brochure). 

“Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid” does not include any fluid which is placed in the

windshield washer reservoir of new motor vehicles at the time the vehicle is manufactured. 

Automotive windshield washer fluids are sold as both ready-to-use (premixed) products

and dilutable concentrates (dilutables). The premixed products make up the vast majority of the

market and are generally sold in one gallon jugs. Premixed products, as one would expect, are

intended to be poured directly into the fluid reservoir without any additional dilution or mixing. 

On the other hand, dilutable concentrates allow consumers to mix the concentrated windshield

washer fluid with water to the desired concentration in a separate container or the washer fluid

reservoir. These dilutable products are generally sold in sizes of one quart or less, although a few

dilutable products are currently sold in half or one gallon containers.

Automotive windshield washer fluids were regulated under the Phase I Consumer

Products Regulation adopted in October of 1990, and a description of these products is also

included in the staff report for that item (ARB, 1990). At that time, the Board adopted a 

10 percent VOC limit for these products in most areas of the State and a 35 percent VOC limit

for products in “Type A” areas. “Type A” areas are regions of the State which experience colder

temperatures and require a higher VOC content to prevent freezing of the fluid in the washer fluid

reservoir. Specifically, Type A areas include only the following regions of California: Del Norte,

Shasta and Trinity Counties; the Great Basin Valley, Lake Tahoe, Mountain Counties, and

Northeast Plateau Air Basins, as defined in title 17, California Code of Regulations, 

sections 60105, 60108, 60111, and 60113.

As explained in the “Issues” section below, the results of the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and

Commercial Products Survey for this category were incomplete. It should be noted that we also

obtained incomplete results when we surveyed this industry in 1990 (Id.). This is because the 

washer fluids category is highly regionalized, with many small formulators moving in and out of

the category throughout the State; making contact with enough manufacturers to obtain broad

survey coverage problematic.

Consequently, we estimated the emissions and emission reductions from this category

based on industry-estimated national sales of 150 million gallons per year (Prestone brochure), an

assumed California proportion of national fluid consumption of 10 percent, and our shelf 

survey-based estimate of 5 percent average VOC content. Our estimate of 5 percent average

VOC content is based on our observation that at least half of the shelf space occupied by
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 71

windshield washer fluids in non-Type A areas appears to be taken by zero-VOC products 

(i.e., those that have no freeze-point depression as indicated by their labels). Because the current

limit is 10 percent VOC by weight, the mid-point of 5 percent VOC seems reasonable as an

estimate of the average VOC content for these products. At least one manufacturer has also cited

5 percent as the average VOC content of “summer” formula products (Somesla, 1993).

Table VI-3 below summarizes our estimate of sales and VOC emissions from automotive

windshield washer fluids based on the previous discussion. As shown in Table VI-3, automotive

windshield washer fluids are the largest source of emissions in this regulatory effort, with

estimated VOC emissions of about 8.3 tons per day (16,600 pounds per day) in California. Based

on our shelf surveys, we estimate the premixed form accounts for about 95 percent of the

California market by weight.

It should be noted that the 8.3 tons per day VOC emissions estimated through this

approach is fully consistent with the methodology used in the original Phase 1 rulemaking and in

the development of the 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP) (ARB Workshop, 5/18/99). 

Indeed, the SIP methodology calculates the same emissions (8.3 tons per day) as the methodology

described in this section. Because these two different methodologies (SIP vs. Industry-based)

achieve equivalent results, we have high confidence that the approach we used to estimate

emissions and reductions for this category is defensible and based on the best available data.

Table VI-3

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids*

Product Form Products (lbs/day) (lbs./day)**

Number of Category Sales Adjusted VOC Emissions

Premixed 40 315,000 15,800

(non-Type A)

Dilutable 15 16,600 830

(non-Type A)

* Number of products for premixed and dilutables are rough estimates based on ARB staff’s

shelf survey.

** Based on Prestone estimate of 150x10 gallons/yr U.S. consumption and assumed 6

California proportion of 10% of U.S. consumption; 5% average VOC (i.e., half California

market at 0% and half at 10% VOC by weight based on ARB staff’s shelf survey.)

Product Use and Marketing:

Automotive windshield washer fluids are sold in auto parts stores, car dealerships,

hardware stores, grocery supermarkets, convenience stores, and in mass-merchandisers 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 72

(Automotive Marketing). These products are also sold directly to businesses such as car

dealerships and fleet maintenance companies (Id.).

Windshield washer fluids, particularly the premixed fluids, are among the easiest of

automotive products to apply; nearly half of the respondents to a recent industry survey who use

washer fluids consider themselves light do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers (Automotive Marketing). 

This is not surprising for premixed fluids, which users typically pour into the washer reservoir

with minimal effort and cleanup and without following dilution instructions. 

Automotive windshield washer fluids are periodically added to the vehicle reservoir by the

DIY consumer or automotive repair facility as needed. A small pump moves the fluid through

tubing until it is squirted onto the windshield(s) through orifices at the base of the front

windshield and the top of the rear windshield (if applicable). In a similar fashion, windshield

washer fluid can also be routed through separate tubing and sprayed onto the headlights of some

newer vehicles to remove dirt and insects from the headlight lenses.

Requiring the physical “squeegee” action of the wiper blades, washer fluids help remove

ice, dirt, bugs, dust and other contaminants from the windshield. Drivers typically squirt these

products onto their vehicle windshield when they first start the vehicle to remove ice or

accumulated dust. They may also apply them while driving to remove bugs or other contaminants

that contact the windshield when the vehicle is moving. Washing bugs and other contaminants off

the windshield with washer fluid as soon as possible after contact is the recommended practice

(Prestone brochure), which aims to keep the still-moist insect remains and other contaminants

motile until they are physically removed by the wiper blades. After insect bodies or tree sap have

dried on the windshield, even so-called “premium” washer fluids may be inadequate for removing

these contaminants, requiring the consumer to resort to conventional glass cleaning manual

procedures (Id.). 

There are significant differences in consumer expectations of windshield washer fluids and

ordinary glass cleaners caused by differences in the way these products are used. Windshield

washer fluids can only clean the “wipe area” of the windshield (i.e., the area which is swept by the

wiper blades), whereas glass cleaners are intended for application to the entire glass surface. 

Also, glass cleaners are designed for an essentially unlimited residence time on the glass

(Prestone, July 1999). In contrast, washer fluids are removed from the glass surface almost

immediately in most late-model cars by the action of the wiper blades, which are automatically

activated soon after the fluid is applied to the windshield (Id.).

Because of the differences in the way washer fluids and glass cleaners are used, we believe

most consumers expect washer fluids to provide only enough cleaning of the windshield’s wipe

area to return the windshield to a driveable and safe condition. Conversely, it seems reasonable to

assume that most consumers do not expect washer fluids to provide the same thorough cleaning

as glass cleaners that are applied by hand for an amount of time limited only by the consumer. 

Windshield washer fluids are not expected to provide the same aesthetic cleaning as glass
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 73

cleaners, because the washer fluids can only clean the wipe area dictated by the wiper blades, not

the entire windshield. According to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

104, windshield washer systems (fluid in combination with the wiper blades) are only required to

clean 75 percent of three specified areas of the windshield (USEPA). This means that up to 25

percent of the windshield will be unaffected by the washer fluid, limiting the aesthetic cleaning

ability of the washer fluid.

Product Formulation:

Because these products are found in both premixed and dilutable concentrates, the VOC

content of automotive windshield washer fluids ranges from zero to 100 percent, with the current

average estimated to be around 5 percent as noted previously. While there is some variation, the

formulations are relatively simple and straightforward. At a minimum, most products contain

water, dye, and surfactants (e.g., Pluronic L-62, Triton N-101, and Igepal CO-630 surfactants). 

Those products that have VOCs usually contain methanol, although isopropanol, propylene

glycol, and other VOCs can also be used (20/10 MSDS for “20/10 All Season Windshield

Cleaner”). To supplement the inherent solvency of water, some products contain other

ingredients such as ethylene glycol, certain glycol ethers, and other substances that qualify as nonregulated, low vapor pressure (LVP) VOCs under section 94508 of the consumer products

regulation (20/10 MSDS for “20/10 Concentrated Instant Windshield Cleaner”).

The VOCs in windshield washer fluids serve several purposes. First, the VOCs typically

serve as freeze-point depressors in most fluids (Somesla, 1993). However, methanol is by no

means the only freeze-point depressor available; Somesla notes that ammonium acetate 

(a non-VOC under section 94508, title 17, CCR), provides equivalent freeze-point depression in

carefully-formulated, commercially-produced washer fluids (Id., at pp. 4-7). Moreover, 

freezing-point depression is largely irrelevant during California’s spring, summer, and fall seasons,

which cover the entire ozone season. Freezing protection to maintain liquid in the reservoir for

use on the windshield is only required during freezing conditions which, in California, is relatively

rare outside of the “Type A” areas as defined in section 94509 of the consumer products

regulation.

Organic compounds, including methanol, can also serve as growth inhibitors 

(Somesla, op cit.). This is an important function for preventing mold and algae growth in the

reservoir and tubing of the windshield washer system. However, as with freeze-point depressors,

methanol is not the only growth inhibitor available. Several varieties of glycol ethers are currently

used as growth inhibitors and de-icing materials in airplane systems 

(Dow Glycol Ethers Handbook). A number of these glycol ethers would qualify as 

non-regulated LVP-VOCs. Manufacturers could therefore use one or more of several

commercially-available glycol ethers to inhibit growth and provide freezing-point depression while

meeting the proposed limit.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 74

As noted previously, another purpose for VOCs in windshield washer fluids is to

supplement the inherent solvency of water. Such ingredients are used to help solubilize

windshield contaminants so that the wiper blades can remove them. However, the substantial

market presence of near-zero washer fluids in California appears to contradict the notion that

VOCs are absolutely required to meet consumer demands and expectations for windshield washer

fluids. Based on our observations of the amount of shelf-space occupied by near-zero products, it

appears that at least 50 percent of the fluids in the market have little or no VOCs 

(as indicated by the lack of freeze-point depression on their label). Thus, California consumers

have shown, through their purchases, that near-zero washer fluids are providing the desired

performance in cleaning windshields to a safe and driveable condition. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The proposed VOC limit of one percent is shown in Table VI-4, and would be effective

December 31, 2002. Our proposal affects only products sold in non-Type A areas. The

mountainous, Type A areas will continue to have the existing 35 percent VOC limit applicable to

any size container, calculated after the minimum recommended dilution. Therefore, our proposal

maintains the current freezing protection needed by consumers in frigid conditions.

For the non-Type A areas, we are proposing a one percent by weight VOC limit for

dilutable products, calculated after the minimum recommended dilution. Because dilutable

concentrates are predominately found in small containers, we are defining dilutable concentrates

as those products which are packaged in quart containers or smaller. This means that products in

a quart or smaller container can have any VOC content, provided the label clearly instructs the

user to dilute the product so that the resulting solution contains no more than one percent by

weight VOC. Consumers typically purchase dilutable products, which tend to be more expensive

per ounce than premixed products, with the expectation that they will be able to dilute the product

into a larger volume of solution. Our definition for dilutable washer fluid is therefore consistent

with ordinary consumer expectations for dilutable products.

 In contrast, we are defining premixed washer fluids as those liquids packaged in

containers larger than a quart. Premixed fluids are most typically found in half-gallon and one

gallon containers, so this definition is consistent with current marketing practices. We are also

proposing a one percent by weight VOC limit for premixed products, calculated for the product

as found in the packaging (i.e., no dilution of the product is allowed). This means that all

premixed fluids would be limited to a maximum of one percent VOC in the container.

By limiting premixed fluids to one percent VOC in the container, we intend to maximize

the effectiveness of the proposed limit in reducing emissions from this category. As noted

previously, the current market is comprised predominately of premixed products, with about 

95 percent by weight comprised of premixed fluids. By definition, premixed products are

products intended for the consumer to pour directly into the fluid reservoir without dilution. If

we do not define dilutables as those products packaged in the smaller containers, manufacturers
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 75

could circumvent our emission reduction goals by placing a high VOC premixed product in a

larger container with dilution instructions that would technically “meet” the one percent VOC

limit. It is highly likely that typical consumers who purchase these “dilutable” products in large

containers would not dilute them as directed, since they would look exactly the same as premixed

products (i.e., in the same type of one gallon container). Under this foreseeable scenario,

consumers would negate our emission reduction goals by using such “dilutable” products as-is in

the reservoir (see “Issues” for additional discussion).

Table VI-4

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids Proposal*

Product Proposed VOC Complying Market Share Adjusted Emission

Form Limit (wt. %) Products (%) Reductions (lbs./day)**

Complying

Dilutable 1 0*** 0*** 0

(non-Type A)

Premixed 1 30 50 14,200

(non-Type A)

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (Survey, 1998) and the staff’s

store shelf surveys.

** Assumes premixed = 95% of the market, products going from 10% to 1%.

*** Compliance for all existing dilutables would require simple changes to the dilution

instructions. All dilutables would therefore be theoretically capable of meeting the

proposed limit. Some reductions will likely happen when users are instructed to dilute to

1%, but compliance with label instructions is difficult to measure and therefore no

estimate of reductions from the dilutable limit was made. The dilutable limit is designed

primarily to prevent circumvention of the premixed limit, as discussed earlier.

As noted earlier, windshield washer fluids are among the most straightforward of the

products affected by the staff’s proposal. We therefore anticipate no particular difficulties in

reformulating products to comply with the proposed limit. Indeed, we estimate that

approximately half the market already meets the proposed limits, and the remaining portion of the

market should have little difficulty in finding the right combination of water, surfactants, VOCs,

LVP-VOCs, and dyes to market successful complying products.

Besides commercially available products, complying formulations can be gleaned from

industry literature. Dow Chemical describes several formulations for very low VOC, complying 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 76

formulations in The Glycol Ethers Handbook, two of which (both zero VOC) are shown as

follows:

Water-Based Summer Use Windshield Washer Solution (Glycol Ethers)

Ingredients Weight Percent

Dowanol PM Glycol Ether 16.00

Dowanol DPM Glycol Ether 6.00

Pluronic L-62 Surfactant 0.02

Water 77.98

Water-Based Summer Use Windshield Washer Solution (Glycol Ethers/Silica)

Ingredients Weight Percent

Dowanol PM Glycol Ether 5.00

Dowanol DPM Glycol Ether 5.00

Colloidol Silica 4.00

Dowfax 2A1Surfactant 0.05

Water 85.95

Reproduced from: Dow Chemical U.S.A., The Glycol Ethers Handbook, Midland MI 48640

Issues:

1. Issue: The market data used to support the staff’s proposal is an inadequate basis for

proposing a limit.

Response: The staff’s proposal is based on the best available data, relying on an estimate

of national sales volume provided by a recognized manufacturer (Prestone brochure). As noted

earlier, this methodology corroborates the result achieved by using the approach used in the 1994

SIP and the original Phase 1 rulemaking. Our methodology therefore represents a legally and

scientifically defensible analysis of this product category’s emissions and potential emission

reductions in California.

2. Issue: The one percent limit would cause freezing problems as consumers purchase

complying products in non-Type A areas and then travel to the Type A areas during winter.

Response: The proposal is designed to provide consumers with the freezing protection

they need under the ambient conditions present at their location. For example, consumers located

in a non-Type A area who are anticipating travel to a Type A area during winter can purchase a

dilutable concentrate in a quart container. The consumer would then dilute the product and use it

as instructed while in the non-Type A area, then apply the product at a higher concentration when

travel to the Type A area commences. Alternatively, the consumer can use up the product

already in the reservoir while in the non-Type A area, then purchase 35 percent VOC compliant
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 77

product at a local store in the Type A area.

Consumers can take either of these approaches under the existing limits, and we are not

proposing to change the freezing protection provided by the current limits. However, it must be

emphasized that with regard to washer fluids, similar to other functional fluids such as engine oil,

the consumer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that their vehicle is properly prepared for the

ambient conditions expected to be encountered.

3. Issue: The one percent limit would keep consumers from getting efficacious, higher VOC

products that are superior in removing bugs and other road contaminants. The result would be

increased streaking which, in turn, could increase traffic accidents due to impaired visibility

(Prestone).

Response: The commenter provided no credible evidence that supports the claim that

high VOC levels are required to remove bugs and other contaminants. Every premixed fluid staff

purchased during the store shelf survey had label claims of efficacy in cleaning bugs and other

road contaminants. Even the commenter’s specifically-identified competitor in the 

so-called “premium” fluid niche market (Prestone, July 1999)-- Rain-X Plus Windshield Washer

Fluid -- contains no more than 2.4 percent VOC (as indicated on its label), and this product

claims superior efficacy against insects on windshields.

On the other hand, even the commenter’s own product label suggests that a high level of

VOC may not adequately remove dried bug splatter. Prestone’s product label instructs the user

to apply the product as soon as possible after encountering bug splatter. If the bug or other

difficult stain is baked or dried on, the user is told that the product may not remove the stain and

other manual cleaning procedures may be required (Prestone brochure). This suggests that the

key to bug removal is not high VOC content, but rather the immediate application of washer fluid

while the bug stain is still moist. The immediate application of fluid at such time helps ensure that

the stain remains solubilized until removed by the physical “squeegee” action of the wiper blades.

Moreover, there are solid, no-VOC products designed to be dissolved in the reservoir

which claim superior insect removal efficacy. For example, 303 Products’ “Instant Windshield

Washer Tablets” is claimed by the manufacturer to be “especially formulated to completely

remove road film, dirt and grime leaving windshields sparkling clean.” Testimonials published by

the manufacturer attest to the product’s efficacy against Florida “love bugs,” which leave a

reportedly thick, sticky, and very difficult stain to remove from windshields (303 product label;

303 internet site).

With regard to the implication that driver safety is potentially compromised by the

proposed limits, the commenter again provided no evidence suggesting such an impact from the

proposed limits. Indeed, the available evidence suggests no such linkage is likely. Zero and 

near-zero VOC fluids have been available for years in California and now account for about half

of the market. If these products were causing accidents, it is hardly conceivable that consumers
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 78

would continue to purchase them at current rates.

Also, an extensive search of available databases with traffic accident statistics showed no

such cause-and-effect relationship between reduced VOC content and increased traffic accidents. 

ARB staff conducted online searches of the Internet-based databases of the Department of

Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, 1998), the Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety, the California Office of Traffic Safety, the California Department of

Motor Vehicles, the California Highway Patrol, and the United States Consumer Protection

Safety Commission (U.S. CPSC). Of these, only the U.S. CPSC’s database had any reference to

problems related to windshield washer fluid. In the one reference staff found, the U.S. CPSC

required the recall of Petroleum Packers’ “XCELl Windshield Washer Fluid” because of

inadequate or missing warning labels and cautionary language to warn the user about the dangers

of methanol in the product (USCPSC, 2/25/97). No other references related to windshield

washer fluids, near-zero VOC or otherwise, were found in any of these comprehensive databases. 

In short, there is no evidence that near-zero VOC washer fluids have or will have any adverse

impacts on a responsible driver’s ability to drive safely.

4. Issue: The staff proposal provides an inadequate basis for requiring dilutable concentrates

in one quart or smaller containers.

Response: As noted earlier, the staff’s proposal to define dilutable concentrates as those

products packaged in one quart or smaller containers is designed to prevent manufacturers from

circumventing the emission reduction goals of this rulemaking. Without this definition,

manufacturers could package high-VOC washer fluids in a half- or one-gallon container, which to

the consumer would resemble premixed, ready-to-use products already on the shelf in similarlysized containers. The consumers would then unwittingly pour the product into the fluid reservoir

and use it as-is without any further dilution, thereby negating the emission reduction benefits of

the staff proposal. Because this category’s emission reductions represent approximately 35

percent of the total statewide reductions from this rulemaking, it would be prudent to minimize or

eliminate this type of circumvention or any other possible circumvention of the proposed limit.

There are several compelling reasons why we are concerned about the potential for

circumvention of the 1 percent limit without the small container definition for dilutable

concentrates. First, some manufacturers already market high-VOC washer fluids in 1 gallon

containers that have no indication on their principal display panels (i.e., the front label) that the

product is intended to be diluted (Zep). In contrast, dilutable concentrates are packaged in

smaller containers and are clearly labeled as concentrates that are intended to be diluted prior to

use (see, for example, Prestone “Windshield Washer Concentrate” label on a 23 fluid ounce

container, and Polar “Windshield Washer Concentrate” label on a 16 fluid ounce container). Even

in cases where the principal display panel indicates the product is to be diluted prior to use, the

dilution instructions appear on the back panel and may be either difficult to read or decipher. See

Recochem’s “All Season Windshield Washer” product label, which refers to the non-layman,

regulatory definitions of “Type A” areas (Recochem). Finally, at least one manufacturer has
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 79

stated that, without the small container definition, it intended to meet the proposed 1 percent

VOC limit for its existing, higher-VOC washer fluid by simply placing dilution instructions on its

1 gallon containers, despite the fact that the product appears to be intended as a ready-to-use

product (Prestone, July 1999). 

Because of these reasons and the fact that nearly all ready-to-use washer fluids are

packaged in 1 gallon containers, it is reasonable to conclude that many consumers will likely

ignore dilution instructions on large containers and use such products as-is, thereby negating to a

significant extent the projected emission reductions from the VOC limit. We therefore believe the

most reasonable way to minimize the potential for this circumvention is to require all dilutable

washer fluids to be packaged in 1 quart or smaller containers, which consumers already associate

with dilutable products (Prestone “Windshield Washer Concentrate” label for a 

23 fluid ounce container, and Polar “Windshield Washer Concentrate” label for a 16 fluid ounce

container, op cit.).

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board. Technical Support Document. “Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products.” August, 1990. (ARB, 1990)

Air Resources Board. “1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey.” February 28, 1998. 

(Survey, 1998)

Air Resources Board. Workshop Presentation. “Automotive Windshield Fluids -- Revised

Emission Estimates.” May 18, 1999. (ARB Workshop, 5/18/99)

Automotive Marketing. Consumer Automotive Research Study. 1997 (Automotive Marketing). 

Dow Chemical Company. “The Glycol Ethers Handbook.” (Dow Glycol Ethers Handbook)

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “Traffic Safety Facts 1997: A Compilation of

Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates

System..” November, 1998. (NHTSA, 1998)

Prestone Products Corporation. Brochure. “No matter where you travel, each season brings its

own set of probelms...” (Prestone brochure)

Prestone Products Corporation. Presentation to CARB. July 12, 1999. (Prestone, July 1999). 

Prestone Products Company. Product label for Prestone “Windshield Washer Concentrate,” 

23 fluid ounce container. (Prestone product label)

Polar Company. Product label for “Windshield Washer Concentrate,” 16 fluid ounce container.

(Polar product label)

Recochem Incorporated. Product label for “All Season Windshield Washer.” (Recochem) 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 80

Somesla, Dana. Windshield Washer Fluid Report. Presented at Automotive Specialty Products 

and Regulatory Seminar. June 17, 1993. (Somesla, 1993)

Unelko Corporation. Product label for Rain X Plus Premium Windshield Washer Fluid. (Unelko

product label) 

United States Consumer Products Safety Commission. News Release # 97-072.

February 25, 1997. (U.S. CPSC, 2/27/97)

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 49 CFR 571.104, Oct. 1998, referring to SAE

Recommended Practices J903a, May 1966, and J942, Nov. 1965 (USEPA). 

Zep Manufacturing Company. Product label for “Zep Klear.” (Zep) 20/10 Products Incorporated. 

Material Safety Data Sheet for “20/10 All Season Windshield Cleaner”. July 1, 1990. (20/10

MSDS for “20/10 All Season Windshield Cleaner”)

20/10 Products Incorporated. Material Safety Data Sheet for “20/10 Concentrated Instant

Windshield Cleaner.” July 1, 1990. (20/10 MSDS for “20/10 Concentrated Instant Windshield

Cleaner”)

303 Products Incorporated. Product label for 303 Instant Windshield Washer Tablets. (303

product label)

303 Products Incorporated. Internet web site. Http://www.303-products.com/wash.htm (303

internet site)

C. Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners

Product Category Description: 

Carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners are products designed to remove fuel

deposits, oil, dirt, and other contaminants from carburetors, chokes, and associated linkages, or the

air intake systems of fuel injected vehicles. Some manufacturers also claim that their products

remove deposits from fuel injectors, engine intake valves, and the combustion chamber. However,

these deposits are more commonly removed by products designed to be introduced directly into the

fuel lines or added to the fuel storage tank. These products are not subject to the proposed

amendments. 

Removal of fuel deposits is necessary because they can cause driveability problems such as

hard starting, rough idling, and poor mileage. These deposits are formed by the oxidation and

polymerization of fuel components, particularly olefins, and can form inside carburetor throats,

idle air circuits, metering jets, and on throttle and choke plates (Owen and Coley). Deposits can

also form in the air intake systems of fuel injected vehicles, particularly inside throttle bodies and

on throttle plates. Removal of oil and dirt from the external surfaces of carburetors and throttle
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 81

bodies is desirable because contaminants can sometimes cause linkages or other moving parts to

stick. 

Carburetor cleaners were regulated under “Phase II” of the consumer products regulation

adopted in January of 1992, and a description of these products is also included in the staff report

for that item (ARB, 1991). At that time, the Board adopted a 75 percent VOC limit for these

products that was effective on January 1, 1995. However, we are proposing to update the

definition to include products designed to clean the air intake systems of fuel-injected vehicles. 

These products provide a similar function, the removal of fuel deposits and other contaminants. 

In fact, some products are labeled for use on both carburetors and fuel-injection throttle bodies

(Dorman; Kar Products). We expect to see a trend toward the fuel-injection air intake cleaners as

fuel injected vehicles continue to replace older vehicles with carburetors. 

Table VI-5 below summarizes the sales and emissions from carburetor or fuel-injection air

intake cleaners based on the results of the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products

Survey (ARB, 1998). As shown in Table VI-5, carburetor and fuel-injection air intake cleaners

are sold in both aerosol and liquid forms, with the aerosol form dominating the market. This

category is one of the largest emissions sources in this regulatory effort, with estimated VOC

emissions of about 6.5 tons per day (13,000 pounds per day) in California. However, this

estimate did not attempt to determine the portion of VOC’s that may be combusted (see “Issues”

section at the end of this chapter). We also did not attempt to estimate the emissions from 

fuel-injection air intake cleaners that did not report in the ARB survey. As explained in the

“issues” section at the end of this chapter, we believe we have sufficient information to regulate

fuel-injection air intake cleaners. 

Table VI-5

Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners*

Product Form Products Sales (lbs/day) (lbs/day)**

Number of Adjusted Category Adjusted VOC Emissions

Aerosols 12 18,400 12,600

Liquids 61 1,060 460

Total 73 19,460 13,060

 * Based on the 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

 ** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:

Carburetor and fuel-injection air intake cleaners are used by both “do-it-yourself” and

professional mechanics. They are used both during routine maintenance and during repairs. Both

aerosol and liquid products are sold, and these forms are used differently. 

The aerosols are used to quickly remove deposits from carburetors, throttle bodies, and
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 82

associated parts, usually while they are still attached to the engine. Aerosols can be used to

remove fuel deposits from the inside surfaces of carburetors by spraying into the carburetor throat

while the engine is running. The solvents in the product combine with the fuel and are carried

throughout the inside passages of the carburetor, eventually reaching the combustion chamber.

For the liquid products, carburetors and associated parts are generally disassembled and 

immersed in a container of the liquid product. Some products include a basket that can be used to

hold parts that are immersed (Berryman). Often sensitive parts such as plastics or rubbers must

be removed prior to immersion. 

Carburetor cleaners are sold in auto parts stores, hardware stores, and mass

merchandisers. Carburetor cleaners are also sold directly, or through specialized distributors, to

commercial businesses such as auto repair facilities, car dealerships, and companies that maintain

their own vehicle fleets. 

Product Formulation:

Carburetor cleaners are composed primarily of a variety of solvents designed to dissolve

fuel deposits, oil, and dirt. The most commonly used solvents are: (1) aromatic hydrocarbons

such as toluene, xylene, and light or heavy aromatic solvent naphtha; and (2) oxygenated solvents

such as methanol, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and 2-butoxyethanol (ARB, 1999). Chlorinated

solvents such as methylene chloride, monochlorotoluene, and perchloroethylene are also used in

some products. 

Although water alone does not dissolve fuel deposits or oils, it is used in conjunction with

other ingredients in some products (Hurrisafe, Kar Products, Guardsman). One manufacturer

reported that the water in their formulation creates steam inside the combustion chamber that can

help to remove combustion chamber deposits when aided by the other ingredients in the

formulation (Guardsman). 

In addition to the solvents mentioned above, some products contain specialized

ingredients designed to aid in cleaning. These ingredients include soaps such as ammonium

oleate, and cresylic acid (Guardsman, Berryman). 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 83

Most aerosol products are solvent-based formulations containing a balance of aromatic

hydrocarbons and oxygenated solvents, with either a carbon dioxide propellant, a hydrocarbon

propellant such as propane, or a hydrocarbon blend such as A-85 or A-46 (ARB, 1999). The

sales-weighted average VOC content of aerosol products is 68 percent. Most products meet the

current 75 percent VOC limit using a combination of acetone and carbon dioxide propellant. 

However, some products containing significant amounts of water or chlorinated solvents are well

below the current 75 percent VOC limit. Products designed exclusively for fuel-injection air

intake systems are not currently subject to the 75 percent limit and are in some cases 100 percent

VOC.

Since aerosol products are designed to be sprayed down the carburetor throat, they are

subject to United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) regulations for fuel

additives (USEPA, 40CFR79; USEPA, 4/6/99). These regulations require manufacturers to

register their formulations. The U.S. EPA also required manufacturers to collectively fund a

literature search on the potential health effects of using their products. Currently, manufacturers

can only register formulations with compounds containing five elements: carbon, hydrogen,

oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur. However, formulations containing other elements were registered

prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. These formulations have been essentially

“grandfathered” from the requirement that they contain only compounds with the five elements

mentioned (USEPA, circa 5/17/99). Some of these grandfathered products contain chlorinated

solvents such as methylene chloride and perchloroethylene. 

The liquid products are formulated with many of the same solvents as the aerosol

products. However, the usage of water and exempt chlorinated solvent is greater overall,

reducing the sales weighted-average VOC content to 43 percent. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The proposed VOC limit for carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners is 45 percent

by weight, effective December 31, 2002. As shown in Table VI-6, using adjusted 1997 emissions,

the proposed limit will result in an estimated emission reduction of 2.2 tons per day (4,400 pounds

per day) in California (1.2 tons per day in the South Coast Air Quality Management District in

2010). 

Table VI-6 also shows that about eight percent of the market currently complies with the

proposed limit, with a much greater percentage of the liquid products complying compared to the

aerosols. The complying products are primarily either water-based or acetone-based

formulations. 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 84

Table VI-6

Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners Proposal*

Product Form Limit (wt. %) Products (%) (lbs/day)**

Proposed VOC Complying Market Share Reductions

Complying Emissions

Aerosol 45 4 4.7 4,200

Liquid 45 3 >70 100

Both 45 7 8.4 4,400

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

A 75 percent VOC limit (effective 1/1/95) was established for carburetor and choke

cleaners when the Phase II consumer products regulation was adopted in January of 1992. 

However, there are now more reformulation options available than there were in 1992. 

Specifically, acetone and methyl acetate have been exempted from the VOC definition. These

solvents are reportedly excellent for dissolving fuel deposits (Chevron). Acetone is probably the

most likely choice of the two because it has properties similar to methyl acetate, but is less

expensive. Manufacturers have reported that they plan to meet the proposed 45 percent limit, at

least in part, with acetone (Berryman, 7/99; Sherwin-Williams, CRC). 

Other reformulation options that could potentially be used by manufacturers include:

(1) water-based formulations; (2) using low vapor pressure (LVP) solvents; and (3) using exempt

propellants such as carbon dioxide (if not already used) or hydrofluorocarbon 152a (HFC-152a). 

Regarding aqueous systems, there are some water-containing aerosol carburetor cleaners on the

market that comply with the proposed limit. Some of these products are marketed as safer

alternatives to the existing chlorinated and solvent-based formulations (Kar, 4/19/99). However,

manufacturers have reported difficulty in formulating these types of systems to meet their

customers’ expectations (Kar Products, 4/19/99). In addition, if manufacturers switch to an

aqueous aerosol system, they may need to replace their carbon dioxide propellant with a

hydrocarbon propellant due to the potential for corrosion when using carbon dioxide with water. 

This would reduce the amount of usable product in the container because the carbon dioxide

propellant typically constitutes only about three to five percent of the formulation by weight,

compared to 15 to 25 percent for a hydrocarbon propellant. 

LVP solvents that could potentially be used include dimethyl adipate (a dibasic ester) and

certain hydrocarbon distillates. Formulations containing dimethyl adipate and other dibasic esters

have been reported to be effective in removing fuel deposits (DuPont). Manufacturers have also

mentioned that LVP distillates may potentially be used unless they are found to leave residues

(Sherwin Williams, CRC). 

Finally, exempt propellants could be used to lower the VOC content of aerosol carburetor
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 85

or fuel-injection air intake cleaners. Carbon dioxide is already used by a large segment of the

industry. However for those manufacturers using hydrocarbon propellants, they could

significantly lower their VOC content by switching to carbon dioxide. HFC-152a could also be

used alone or blended with a hydrocarbon propellant. However, it is much more expensive than

the carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon propellants now used in brake cleaners. In addition, if a

manufacturer is currently using a carbon dioxide propellant, switching from carbon dioxide to

HFC-152a would increase the volume of the product taken up by the propellant and reduce the

amount of usable product (referred to as “concentrate”) in the container.

Most carburetor and fuel-injection air intake system cleaners will not be able to

reformulate using chlorinated compounds. This is because most of these products are regulated

by the U.S. EPA as fuel additives. As explained previously in the “Product Formulation” section,

new formulations cannot be registered if they contain compounds with elements other than

carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur.

Issues:

1. Issue: Manufacturers have pointed out that the 1997 ARB Consumer and Commercial

Products Survey requested information only on carburetor and choke cleaners. Therefore, we

should not expand the definition of carburetor-choke cleaners to include fuel-injection air intake

cleaners.

Response: We believe we have adequate data to update the carburetor/choke cleaner

definition to include fuel-injection air intake cleaners. Although the survey did not specifically

request information for fuel-injection air intake cleaners, some manufacturers reported these

products as carburetor/choke cleaners. This is because the products are similar, and in some

cases are labeled for use on both carburetors and fuel-injection air intake systems. Both

carburetor cleaners and fuel-injection air intake cleaners are designed to remove fuel deposits and

other contaminants from metal surfaces, and they are formulated similarly.

2. Issue: Some manufacturers have stated that fuel-injection air intake cleaners should not be

regulated because the primary means of reformulation is increasing the amount of acetone in the

formulation, and some throttle bodies of fuel-injected vehicles have teflon coatings that are

incompatible with acetone.

Response: ARB staff contacted manufacturers of fuel-injection air intake cleaners, the

Automotive Chemical Manufacturers Council, and several automobile manufacturers to request

service bulletins or other information that would verify whether the coatings on throttle bodies or

other components of fuel-injection air intake systems could be damaged by acetone or other

solvents. Based on this investigation, ARB staff found that some Ford vehicles have throttle

bodies with teflon coatings that are labeled “Do not clean or adjust” (Ford). No other information

was provided to indicate that acetone would be incompatible with other vehicles or components. 

Based on this information, we believe manufacturers could reformulate fuel-injection air intake
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 86

systems using acetone. In addition, manufacturers have other reformulation options as discussed

in the previous section “Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance.”

3. Issue: Some of the VOC’s in carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners are

combusted during use, reducing actual emissions.

Response: We realize that some portion of the VOC’s in carburetor and fuel-injection air

intake cleaners will be combusted. For example, when aerosol products are sprayed down the

carburetor throat while the engine is running, much of the product is carried along with the fuel

into the combustion chamber. However, aerosol products are also sprayed on the outside of

carburetors, chokes, and linkages, and are used for general degreasing of tools and other objects

(Berryman, 12/97). In addition, many liquid products are designed for use in dip containers and

would not have a combustion fate. We have no information that would allow us to estimate the

proportion of VOC’s that are combusted. 

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board. Technical Support Document. “Proposed Amendments to the Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - 

Phase II.” October, 1991. (ARB, 1991)

Air Resources Board. 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. February 28, 1998. 

(ARB, 1998)

Air Resources Board. 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey Data Summaries.

February 8, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

Berryman Products, Incorporated. Automotive Catalog. Chem-Dip Carburetor and Parts Cleaner

Part #0902. January, 1999. (Berryman, 1/99)

Berryman Products, Incorporated. Internet site. Http://www.berrymanproducts.com/tips.htm. 

Revised December 10, 1997. Viewed May 3, 1999. (Berryman, 12/97).

Berryman Products, Incorporated. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. July 23, 1999.

(Berryman, 7/99).

Chevron. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. February 22, 1999. (Chevron).

CRC Industries, Incorporated. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. July 23, 1999. (CRC).

Dorman, Shirl. Spray Technology and Marketing. “New Product Roundup-Part 2,

Automotive/Industrial and Household Products.” September, 1998. (Dorman)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 87

E. I. duPont deNemours & Co., Incorporated. Research Disclosure. Gasoline Engine Fuel System

Cleaner. March, 1989. (DuPont).

Ford Motor Company. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. June 14, 1999. (Ford).

Guardsman. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. Circa April 28, 1999. (Guardsman).

Hurrisafe Products. Internet site. Http://www.hurrisafe.com/newpage4.htm. Viewed 

April 19, 1999. (Hurrisafe).

Kar Products. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. April 19, 1999. (Kar Products, 4/19/99).

Kar Products. Product label. Gold Line Carb and Choke Cleaner 84449. (Kar Products)

Owen, Keith, and Cooley, Trevor. Automotive Fuels Reference Book. Second Edition. Society

of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 1995. (Owen and Coley)

Sherwin-Williams. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. July 21, 1999. (Sherwin-Williams).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Title 40. Code of Federal Regulations. 

Part 79. (USEPA, 40CFR79).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. 

Circa May 17, 1999. (USEPA, 5/17/99).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. 

Circa April 6, 1999. (USEPA, 4/16/99).

D. Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives

Product Category Description:

Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesive is defined as any one-component

adhesive that is designed exclusively for the installation, remodeling, maintenance, or repair of: (a)

structural and building components that include, but are not limited to, beams, trusses, studs,

paneling (drywall or drywall laminates, fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP), plywood, particle

board, insulation board, pre-decorated hardboard or tileboard, etc.), ceiling and acoustical tile,

molding, fixtures, countertops or countertop laminates, cove or wall bases, and flooring or

subflooring; or (b) floor or wall coverings that include, but are not limited to, wood or simulated

wood covering, carpet, carpet pad or cushion, vinyl-backed carpet, flexible flooring material,

nonresilient flooring material, mirror tiles and other types of tiles, and artificial grass. 

Construction, panel, and floor covering adhesive does not include units of product, less
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 88

packaging, which weigh more than one pound and consist of more than 16 fluid ounces. Also,

construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives that are sold in containers of one fluid ounce or

less are exempt from the VOC limit.

The local air pollution control districts in California regulate the use of larger sizes

(greater than 16 fluid ounces or one pound) and industrial-use adhesives. Currently, the following

nine districts have adhesive regulations: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD), El

Dorado County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Placer County APCD, Sacramento

Metropolitan AQMD, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, South Coast AQMD, Ventura County

APCD, Yolo-Solano AQMD, and San Diego County APCD.

In December 1998, the ARB published the document titled “Determination of Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology

(BARCT) for Adhesives and Sealants” (RACT/BARCT) (ARB, 1998b). The members of the

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Adhesives Committee (which includes

ARB staff) developed the RACT/BARCT for the purpose of meeting California Clean Air Act

requirements and to provide consistency between district rules. The RACT/BARCT contains

suggested VOC limits for adhesives and sealants used in commercial and manufacturing processes

that are regulated by the districts. As mentioned above, the districts also regulate adhesives sold

in containers larger than 16 fluid ounces or one pound. The VOC limits in the RACT/BARCT are

largely based on limits adopted in existing district adhesive and sealant rules. The district and

RACT/BARCT limits are established on the basis of grams VOC per liter [g/l], less water and

exempt solvents. There are VOC limits for seven subcategories in the RACT/BARCT that relate

to the construction, panel, and floor covering adhesive category for consumer products. Most of

the VOC limits for these subcategories range from 130 g/l to 250 g/l, however, there is one

specialty substrate VOC limit of 660 g/l.

Volatile organic compound limits and the small size requirements were first introduced for

consumer product adhesives during the development of the ARB “Phase II” consumer products

regulation. Two subcategories, “Aerosols” and “All Others (General Purpose),” were described

in the “Phase II” staff report, technical support document, and appendices 

(ARB, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c). Prior to the “Phase II” Board hearing (January 9, 1992), two

additional adhesive subcategories, “Construction and Panel Adhesive” and “Contact Adhesive”

were added to the list of “Phase II” categories for regulation. The VOC limit for “Construction

and Panel Adhesive” is currently 40 percent, by weight, which became effective on

January 1, 1995.

In the ARB survey (ARB, 1998a), “Carpet and Tile Adhesives” and “Construction and

Panel Adhesives” were reported as separate categories. However, we combined the two

categories to form the new category “Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesive.” We

believe this is appropriate because the products in both categories are distributed similarly, used in

the construction, remodeling, maintenance, and repair of residential and commercial buildings, and

have an overlap on how they were reported in the survey. Floor covering adhesives are not
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 89

proposed to be subject to a VOC limit until the effective date of the proposed limit for the

combined category. 

Table VI-7 below summarizes the sales and emissions from construction, panel, and floor

covering adhesives based on the sales and emissions of the small sizes (16 fluid ounces or one

pound) of adhesive products sold in California. The information in Table VI-7 does not include

non-aerosol adhesive products that are sold in larger container sizes, which are regulated by most

of the larger air pollution control districts in California.

Based on the ARB survey, 74 construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives were sold

in California in 1997. The sales in this adhesive category are estimated at 8,880 pounds of

product per day. After adjusting for market coverage, the 1997 VOC emissions are estimated at

2,000 pounds per day from the sales of small size containers. The sales-weighted average for the

small size containers of construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives is estimated to be

22 percent VOC.

Table VI-7

Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives*

Product Form Products (lbs/day) (lbs/day)**

Number of Category Sales Emissions

Adjusted VOC

Non-aerosol 74 8,880 2,000

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:

Construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives are used to construct, remodel,

maintain, or repair houses, buildings, bridges, and other types of structures and their

appurtenances. According to Skeist (1990), the construction industry is one of the largest users

of adhesives, requiring about 40 types of adhesives in about 30 different applications. These

products are used on most types of substrates including wood, wood-derived products (plywood,

hardboard, particle board, and insulation board), steel, concrete, masonry, and fiberglass

reinforced materials. Another major use for these products is to install decorative finishing

materials (e.g., floor and wall carpeting and tiles, paneling, cove bases, ceiling tiles, etc.) to the

inside of buildings.

Selection must be made for each application on the basis of performance requirements

(such as durability and strength), type of substrates, working properties needed, desired

production rates, and cost. Environmental conditions such as prolonged soaking, wetting and

drying cycles, extremely low or high temperatures, and other adverse conditions that may arise

during construction and service life must be considered when selecting the appropriate adhesive to
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 90

use.

Construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives are labeled and marketed for either

multipurpose or specialty uses. The following examples indicate the types of application for

which these products are marketed: cove base and stair treads; wall and floor tile, wood parquet

floor, ceramic tile, mirror tile, and sheet flooring; indoor/outdoor carpet and carpet pad; FRP and

wallboard, panel and construction, molding and trim, paneling and molding, and panel and foam;

tub surrounds and shower walls; light duty, heavy duty, multipurpose, all-purpose, and general

construction; subfloor and deck; and countertop.

Construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives are sold in different sizes ranging from

4 fluid ounce tubes to 55 gallon drums. The more common sizes used in construction and panel

projects are 10-11 and 29 fluid ounce disposable cartridges that fit in half-barrel caulking guns. 

Larger sizes, such as 32 ounce or 1-5 gallon containers, are the more common sizes used in floor

covering projects. As mentioned previously, non-aerosol containers of 16 fluid ounces or less, or

one pound or less, are regulated under this category.

Construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives are primarily sold through hardware

stores, home supply centers, warehouse clubs, and discount chain stores. Distributors also sell

these products directly to firms with a large customer base such as contractors, residential and

commercial builders, janitorial companies, and corporations and organizations that maintain their

own facilities.

Individual or do-it-yourselfers, and professionals employed in residential and commercial

development sites use construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives. Although these products

are used in the “manufacture” or “construction” of homes and facilities at residential and

commercial development sites, the adhesive products do not qualify as “industrial” use products

as defined in the consumer products regulation because the development sites are temporary. In

other words, the adhesive products are not being used at a permanent site or establishment to

produce goods or commodities. In addition, many of these adhesive products are available for

purchase at hardware stores, home supply centers, and warehouse clubs by both professional

contractors and household users.

Product Formulation:

Typical construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives may contain any combination of

the following components: diluent, binder, catalyst, hardener, accelerator, inhibitor, retarder,

filler, plasticizer, stabilizer, and wetting agent (Shields, 1984).

The diluent (water-based or solvent-based) is the solvent vehicle for other adhesive

components which also provides viscosity control to make a uniformly thin adhesive coating

possible. The binder (resin system) may be the most important component because it provides the

adhesive and cohesive strength in the bond. Fillers are nonadhesive materials that improve the
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 91

working properties, permanence, strength, or other qualities of the adhesive bond. Catalysts and

hardeners are curing agents for adhesive systems, and accelerators, inhibitors, and retarders

control the curing rate. Plasticizers provide the adhesive bond with flexibility or distensibility. 

Stabilizers help the adhesive increase its resistance to adverse service conditions such as light,

heat, radiation, etc. Wetting agents promote interfacial contact between the adhesive and

adherends (substrates) by improving the wetting and spreading qualities of the adhesive. 

Depending on the particular type of formulation, additional components such as tackifiers,

humectants, thickeners, and foam control agents may be used (Skeist, 1990).

The water-based formulations that are included in the 1997 Survey may contain water in

the range of 3 to 87 percent by weight. Although water is the primary diluent, some VOC

co-solvents are used in the range of 1 to 10 percent and may include Stoddard solvent, mineral

spirits, toluene, hexane, heptane, light solvent aliphatic naphtha, and alcohol (ethyl, methyl, and

isopropyl). Some formulations also use LVP-VOCs such as ethylene glycol and propylene glycol

ranging from 1 to 5 percent. The resins used in these formulations may include acrylic resin,

acrylic latex resin, acrylic copolymer latex, or vinyl acetate/ethylene copolymer in amounts that

range from 1 to 20 percent. The most common fillers used are limestone 

(calcium carbonate), kaolin, silica (quartz, crystalline and amorphous) in the range of 1 to 

70 percent. A few formulations may also contain titanium dioxide as a colorant in the amount of

5 percent or less.

The typical solvent-based formulations that are included in the 1997 Survey may contain

the following VOC diluents: toluene, hexane, heptane, hydrotreated light petroleum distillate,

2 or 3-methylpentane, dimethylpentane, dimethylbutane, ethyl alcohol, heptane, and light aliphatic

solvent naphtha in the range of 1 to 40 percent. Exempt compounds, such as acetone, may also

be used as a diluent in the range of 1 to 30 percent. One example of an LVP-VOC that is used is

mineral oil, which can range from 1 to 10 percent. The resins found in these formulations may

include polymethylene polphenyl isocyanate, methylene bisphenyl diisocyanate, styrene-butadiene

polymer, and aromatic hydrocarbon resin in the range of 1 to 20 percent. The fillers may include

silica (quartz, crystalline, and amorphous), talc, kaolin, and limestone (calcium carbonate) in

amounts that range from 1 to 60 percent.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The proposed VOC limit for construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives is

15 percent by weight, effective on December 31, 2002. We believe this limit is feasible using

technology that is currently available. As shown in Table VI-8, using adjusted emissions, the

proposed VOC limit will result in VOC emission reductions of approximately 880 pounds per day. 

Table VI-8 also shows that 29 products already meet the proposed limit and represent

17.4 percent of the market. In addition, there are several products slightly above the proposed

limit that may comply with the proposed limit after minor reformulation.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 92

Table VI-8

Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives Proposal*

Product VOC Limit Complying Market Share Adjusted Emission

Form (wt. %) Products (%) Reductions (lbs./day)**

Proposed Complying

Non-aerosol 15 29 17.4 880

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Based on the 1997 Survey, all the products that comply with the proposed limit are

formulated with a large amount of water, inorganic solids, LVP-VOCs, or a combination of the

three. Several formulations also contain acetone, an exempt VOC, which can be used to further

reduce the VOC level. In addition, at least one complying formulation is available for each of the

following applications: countertop, paneling, cove base, wall and floor covering, multipurpose

construction, and subflooring. These formulations are made by a variety of manufacturers and are

widely available in the market indicating that there is wide flexibility in reformulation. 

Furthermore, although the comparison between limits expressed in weight percent and limits

expressed in grams per liter (less water and exempt solvents) vary with the density and

formulation type, the proposed VOC limit of 15 percent, by weight, is slightly less than the

equivalent RACT/BARCT VOC limit of 200 g/l suggested for “Multipurpose Construction

Adhesive.”

It is primarily the solvent-based products that will need reformulation to meet the

proposed 15 percent VOC limit. Manufacturers will be able to comply with the proposed limit

using water, inorganic solids, LVP-VOCs, exempt VOCs such as acetone and methyl acetate, or

any combination of the five.

Issues:

1. Issue: Although floor covering adhesives may have a low VOC content, the nature of

their use and formulation is more specialized than that of construction and panel adhesives. 

Construction and panel adhesives are used for a wider array of conditions and performance

standards. Therefore, the amount of VOCs in floor covering adhesives should not be the basis to

further reduce the VOC level below the proposed 15 percent limit for Construction, Panel, and

Floor Covering Adhesives in the future. 

Response: Based on the 1997 Survey, there is a wide array of construction and panel

adhesives whose VOC content is already below 15 percent indicating that, in many cases, the

technology already exists. We also anticipate that the new technologies that will be developed in

the next few years will also bring the VOC content in most products to levels that are below

15 percent. However, similar to other consumer product categories, if we decide to revisit this

category in the future, we will assess the current and emerging technologies, current and potential
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 93

emission reductions, and manufacturers’ progress in attaining a future proposed limit.

2. Issue: The category is too broad for a single VOC limit because there are too many end

uses. It is suggested that there be 7 subcategories.

Response: We agree there are many different end uses in this category; however, based

on the ARB survey, there are products with different end uses that already comply with the

proposed limit indicating that subcategorization is not necessary. Also, allowing

subcategorization to occur in this category would yield little, if any, emission reductions. We

discussed this issue with representatives of the industry and their associations and determined that

having one category with the proposed VOC limit of 15 percent is appropriate.

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board. Staff Report. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase II.

October, 1991a. (ARB, 1991a)

Air Resources Board. Technical Support Document. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - 

Phase II. October, 1991b. (ARB, 1991b)

Air Resources Board. Appendices. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase II.

October, 1991c. (ARB, 1991c)

Air Resources Board. 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. February 28, 1998a. 

(ARB, 1998a)

Air Resources Board. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best

Available Retrofit Control Technology for Adhesives and Sealants. December, 1998b. 

(ARB, 1998b)

DAP, Incorporated. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. July 29, 1999. (DAP, 1999)

Shields, J. Adhesives Handbook. Third Edition. Butterworth & Company. 1984. 

(Shields, 1984)

Skeist, Irving. Handbook of Adhesives. Third Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1990. 

(Skeist, 1990)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 94

E. Crawling Bug Insecticides

Product Category Description:

Crawling bug insecticides are consumer products designed to eradicate non-flying

household insects or pests such as cockroaches, ants and spiders. These products may also be

used in janitorial, institutional or commercial settings, but do not include those products designed

specifically for use by licensed pest control operators (PCO’s).

All insecticides sold within California must be registered with the California Department of

Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and with the U.S. EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Insecticides used by PCO’s generally contain either higher levels of

active ingredients than their consumer-use counterparts or use ingredients which are deemed too

hazardous for consumer use. These products fall under the authority of the DPR, and are

excluded from this regulation since they are not available to the consumer.

Crawling bug insecticides were regulated under “Phase II” of the consumer products

regulation which was adopted in January of 1992. The Board adopted a two-tier limit for these

products, initially setting a 40 percent VOC limit effective January 1, 1995, followed by a 

20 percent VOC limit effective January 1, 1998. For products subject to registration

requirements under FIFRA, an additional year is granted for compliance. Hence, the second-tier

limit of 20 percent became effective in January of 1999. The staff report for the Phase II

regulation contains additional information on these products (ARB, 1991).

Crawling bug insecticides come in a wide variety of product forms, and incorporate many

different strategies for controlling insects. The most common forms include bait stations,

residuals (solid granules), liquids and aerosols. The sales and emissions from the various product

forms are presented in the table below.

Table VI-9

Crawling Bug Insecticides*

Product Form Products (lbs./day) Emissions (lbs/day)**

Number of Category Sales Adjusted VOC

Aerosols 62 24,600 7,620

Bait Stations 12 255 0

Liquids 21 18,200 160

Pumps 17 14,300 40

Solids exc Baits 24 5,840 0

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 95

Crawling bug insecticides are sold in supermarkets, mass merchandise outlets, hardware

stores, nurseries and other locations. These products are used around homes, offices, and

commercial and institutional areas to control ants, roaches, spiders and other crawling bugs. 

The aerosol insecticide products are marketed either as broad spectrum insecticides which

will kill all kinds of flying or crawling bugs or as specific use products such as ant and roach

killers. Aerosol crawling bug killers, while targeting specific bugs such as ants and roaches, 

usually are effective against any crawling bug.

Bait stations are designed to be effective against a single insect type. For example, ant

traps contain foodstuffs to attract the ant. When the ants bring the foodstuff/toxin to the queen,

the whole nest is killed. Roach stations contain foodstuffs/toxins which will kill roaches shortly

after ingestion.

Residual insecticides, such as diazinon or chlorpyrifos, tend to be packaged in granules,

wettable powders or emulsifiable concentrates. They are broad spectrum insecticides which will

kill a wide variety of crawling bugs in and around the home. A layer of the residual insecticide is

sprayed, dusted or spread in areas to be controlled. Residual insecticides are effective in

preventing the return of bugs from days to months after application (Trumans, 1997; Dangerous

Pests, 1998).

Product Formulation

Consumer insecticides generally follow a simple formulary. Typically, these products

contain about 1 percent active ingredient, and the remainder of the product is a carrier, aiding in

transporting the active ingredient to the bug and penetrating the exoskeleton. The following

discussion on insecticide terminology, functions and active ingredients is applicable to all of the

insecticide categories currently proposed for regulation. 

The compound that carries out the desired insecticidal function is known as the active

ingredient. The ability of an active ingredient to actually kill bugs, rather than simply flush them

out or provide knockdown (both terms described below), is a key measure of its activity. A

product may contain one or more active ingredients, targeting the same or different metabolic

functions of the insect. A discussion on typical active ingredients is presented later in this chapter.

The ability of an insecticide to paralyze an insect is called its knockdown ability. 

Knockdown does not necessarily correlate with killing. Frequently, these events are carried out

by different ingredients. The knockdown agent will paralyze the bug, allowing the consumer to

douse the insect with sufficient amount of product to kill it. Knockdown is another key measure

of an insecticide’s “activity.”

Bugs such as cockroaches or ants frequently inhabit tiny cracks, holes or other areas
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 96

where it is difficult to directly apply a stream of spray, and the bugs are shielded from the affects

of the active ingredients. Therefore, certain ingredients in pesticides are used to bring insects

from their hiding places into the open where they may be directly exposed. This phenomenon is

referred to as flushing. Flushing ability is another measure of an insecticide’s activity.

Some toxic ingredients of pesticides are relatively stable under ambient conditions, and

may persist on surfaces from days to months after application. Their persistence leads to

insecticidal activity and insect control long after the time of application. This persistence is

referred to as residual kill.

Few, if any, active ingredients are effective at flushing, knocking down, killing and

providing residual kill against all insects. More typically, active ingredients are used in

combination to provide all or most of these functions. For example, an effective flushing and

knockdown agent is used in combination with an effective killing agent. A fast knockdown and

killing agent may be mixed with a stable, residual killer to provide both immediate and long lasting

insect control. These ingredients are said to synergize each other. In some cases, synergists are

used to target enzymes which would otherwise deactivate the active ingredient.

Insecticides kill their target insects by a variety of strategies. Neurotoxins kill by

disrupting the activity of the insect’s nervous system. Other poisons kill by disrupting key

enzymes involved in various stages of the insect life cycle or reproductive processes. Still others

may kill by destroying the insect’s waxy outer cuticle, making the bug vulnerable to dessication. 

Consumers purchase insecticides primarily in the forms of baits, which provide slow acting, but

long lasting, ant and roach control, and ready-to-use killers for immediate insect control. This

focused use of consumer insecticides tends to limit the number of active ingredients used in these

products. A description of active ingredients used in consumer insecticides is provided below.

Pyrethrins and Pyrethroids -- Pyrethrins and pyrethroids are the most commonly used active

ingredients in ready-to-use consumer insecticides. They are contact poisons. Contact poisons kill

by penetrating the body wall, either by inhalation or by dissolving through the waxy cuticle. After

penetrating the exoskeleton, pyrethrins and pyrethroids kill by disrupting the insect’s nervous

system. They affect the sodium channels which are instrumental in controlling nervous impulses.

Pyrethrins are natural extracts from the Chrysanthemum flower. They are oily liquids

which were discovered to have insecticidal properties centuries ago. As a group, pyrethrins have

fast knockdown and flushing ability, but insects may recover from the effects of pyrethrins within

several hours. Hence, they tend to be used with a synergist such as piperonyl butoxide or MGK

264, which inactive the enzymes that detoxify pyrethrins.

Pyrethroids are synthetic derivatives of pyrethrins which have improved killing power,

knockdown or flushing ability. These synthetic derivatives may also be more stable than

pyrethrins, providing residual kill, or may be more volatile, with enhanced vapor toxicity. 

Commonly used pyrethroids include tralomethrin, permethrin, tetramethrin, allethrin, and
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 97

cypermethrin.

As a group, pyrethrins and pyrethroids have low mammalian toxicity yet are highly

effective against insects, which is why their use in consumer insecticides is prevalent.

Organophosphates and Carbamates -- These are synthetic compounds which kill by disrupting

the action of the enzyme acetylcholine esterase. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter common to

both insects and mammals. Its degradation following a nervous impulse by acetylcholine esterase

is required in order to stop the impulse. Organophosphates and carbamates inhibit the enzyme,

and hence disrupt the bug’s nervous system.

Due to their mammalian toxicity, the use of organophosphates and carbamates in

consumer aerosol products is limited. However, chlorpyrifos (Dursban ) and diazinon, which TM

are organophosphates of relatively low mammalian toxicity, are occasionally used in aerosol

products. Diazinon is frequently used in the control of garden pests, generally in the form of an

emulsifiable concentrate. Chlorpyrifos, a contact poison, is used in bait stations and occasionally

is used with pyrethrins in household insect sprays. Both diazinon and chlorpyrifos have good

residual kill properties. Malathion is another organophosphate insecticide used both agriculturally

and in the control of garden pests.

Carbamates such as carbaryl (Sevin ) and propoxur (Baygon ) are also in common use TM TM

in consumer insecticides. Carbaryl is a broad spectrum insecticide, and in consumer products is

frequently used in lawn and garden products. Propoxur is used in the control of ants and roaches.

Inorganics -- Inorganic pesticides are generally minerals such as boric acid or diatomaceous earth. 

They are usually deposited as a powder in areas where bugs are likely to pass, and provide long

lasting insect control.

Boric acid dust granules are ingested by the bug after it has been exposed to the dust and

attempts to clean itself. Upon ingestion, the boric acid then interferes with the bugs intracellular

metabolism. Although the killing effect of the inorganics are slow, their effects are long lasting. 

Sodium fluoride, another inorganic, kills by much the same mechanism as boric acid.

Diatomaceous earth or silica aerogel are inorganics which kill by disrupting the waxy

outer cuticle of the insect. Upon exposure to the dust, disruptions in the cuticle will lead to death

by dessication.

The active ingredients in consumer insecticides typically make up no more than a few

percent of the product. The remainder of the product consists of inert ingredients, including the

carrier which is either an organic solvent or water with an emulsifier. The inert ingredients may

also contain attractants, phermones or food in the case of insect baits, propellant in the case of

aerosol products, fragrances to mask unpleasant odors, and other ingredients. Additional

discussion on the carrier ingredients in crawling bug insecticides is provided below 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 98

(Trumans, 1997; Dangerous Pests, 1998; IPM, 1999; ARB, 1991).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

Crawling bug insecticides are currently limited to 20 percent VOC by weight, effective

January 1, 1999. Staff propose to lower the allowable VOC content for aerosol products to 

15 weight percent effective December 31, 2004. Table VI-10 below presents the emission

reductions and complying marketshare at the proposed limit.

Table VI-10

Crawling Bug Insecticides Proposal*

Product Form (wt. %) Products (%) (tons/day)**

Proposed Complying Adjusted Emission

VOC Limit Complying Market Share Reductions

Aerosols 15 13 15 0.49

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

As shown above, aerosol products are currently marketed which will meet the proposed

15 percent limit. Based on the survey data, these products have a range of formulation

technologies. Several of the complying products are solvent based, using an LVP distillate as the

carrier and carbon dioxide as the propellant. Other complying products are water-based, using

either dimethyl ether or a hydrocarbon propellant, a small amount of petroleum distillate or glycol

ether solvent, and an emulsifier.

In technical discussions with crawling bug insecticide manufacturers, some have indicated

that aerosol products require about 15 percent hydrocarbon propellant to achieve the proper

particle size and still have adequate propellant to evacuate the container (Clorox, 1999). While

this claim is not necessarily supported in light of the complying formulations, it is possible with a

15 percent VOC limit to use this amount of hydrocarbon propellant. In meeting the current 20

percent VOC limit, manufacturers have employed approximately 15 percent propellant and 5

percent of a VOC solvent, along with either an LVP solvent or a water/emulsifier carrier system

or both. Staff feel that manufacturers may be able to substitute the 5 percent VOC solvent for

either an exempt solvent such as acetone or an LVP distillate. Alternatively, compliance may be

achieved by substitution of a non-VOC propellant for a portion of the hydrocarbon propellant.

While only 15 percent of the aerosol market complies with the proposed limit, a substantial

marketshare is within 1 percent of this limit. Hence, minor formulation changes will bring

manufacturers into compliance. In addition, since the Survey was conducted in 1997, the 

20 percent limit was not yet in effect. In reformulating to meet the 20 percent limit, some major

manufacturers have developed products that comply with the proposed 15 percent limit. Thus, the

complying marketshare is actually much higher than the 15 percent listed in Table VI-10. 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 99

The proposed limit is therefore supported by some major manufacturers (United Industries, 1999). 

Issues:

1. Issue: The 20 percent limit for this category just became effective in January of 1999. 

Substantial investments have been made by manufacturers to meet this limit. Therefore,

regulation of this category should be postponed until the Long-Term Measures.

Response: We recognize that manufacturers have made substantial investments to

achieve the current 20 percent limit. In consideration of this, we have extended the effective date

of the limit to December 31, 2004. Since insecticides are regulated under FIFRA, the actual

effective date is not until December 31, 2005, so manufacturers will be able to amortize the cost

of reformulation over at least a 5 year span. We believe this is adequate time to develop new

products to meet the proposed 15 percent limit and recoup the costs from the previous

reformulation.

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document, “Proposed Amendments to the Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - 

Phase II”, October, 1991b. (ARB, 1991)

Air Resources Board, “1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey”, February 28, 1998. 

(Survey, 1998)

“Truman’s Scientific Guide to Pest Control Operations, Fifth Edition.” Advanstar

Communications, 1997. Gary W. Bennett, Ph. D, John M. Owens, Ph.D, Robert M. Corrigan,

Ph.D. (Trumans, 1997).

“Dangerous Pests - The Impact of Insects on Human Health.” Chemical Specialties

Manufacturers Association, 1998. (Dangerous Pests, 1998).

Telephone conversation with ARB staff and Clorox Company, August 3, 1999.

Telephone conversation with ARB staff and United Industries, August 12, 1999.

“An Introduction to Insecticides.” National IPM Network, University of Minnesota. Internet

Web Site http://ipmworld.umn.edu. (IPM, 1999).
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 100

F. Double-Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners

Product Category Description:

Double-phase air fresheners are consumer products designed for the purpose of masking

odors, or freshening, cleaning, scenting, or deodorizing the air. They do not include products that

are used on the human body, cleaning products, or dual purpose air freshener/disinfectant. 

Double-phase air fresheners were first regulated under the consumer products regulation

(“Phase I”) adopted in October, 1990 (ARB, 1990c). The current volatile organic compound

(VOC) limit for double-phase aerosol air fresheners is 30 percent by weight effective 

January 1, 1993. In addition to the aerosol product form, air fresheners are available in other

forms including, but not limited to, liquids, gels, powders, crystals and blocks. According to the

1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, VOC emissions from all forms of air

fresheners are 5.9 tons per day, of which 78 percent are from single- and double-phase aerosol

forms (ARB, 1998). Table VI-11 below summarizes the sales and VOC emissions from aerosol

air fresheners. Single-phase aerosol products make up one percent of the air freshener market and

contribute about four percent of the VOC emissions from air fresheners. Double-phase aerosol

products make up 18 percent of the air freshener market and contribute about 74 percent of the

emissions from air fresheners. Because of the greater potential for further emission reductions

from double-phase products, only double-phase products are being considered for further VOC

reductions in this rulemaking. 

The sales-weighted average VOC content, including the fragrance composition, of doublephase aerosol forms is 30 percent, consistent with the VOC limit of 30 percent by weight (ARB,

1998). The liquid content of the double-phase aerosol product is present in more than one phase. 

Generally, there is a water-based phase and an organic-based phase. To successfully discharge

the product, double-phase air fresheners need to be shaken before use to mix the phases into a

homogenous emulsion. 

Table VI-11

Single- and Double-Phase Air Fresheners*

Product Form Number of Products (lbs./day) Emissions (lbs/day)**

Category Sales Adjusted VOC

Single-Phase 119 1509 447

Double-Phase 19 28996 8758

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 101

Product Use and Marketing:

Air fresheners are used in household, automotive, institutional, and commercial settings to

treat unpleasant odors. This is accomplished by masking the odor with a pleasant scent or

removing the odor. The household products are generally available through retailers, while the

institutional and commercial products are sold via wholesalers through distribution channels or

direct sales. 

Household air fresheners are used to treat bathroom and kitchen odors, pet odors, garbage

odors, smoke, and odors caused by moisture. The double-phase products make up the majority

of the consumer use market. These products are generally sprayed as needed with the user

controlling the amount of product emitted (ARB, 1990b). 

Air fresheners used in institutional and commercial settings control odors from bathrooms,

laundry areas, food preparation areas and specific industries such as diaper services (ARB,

1990b). However, most air fresheners used in this segment of the market are single-phase selfdispensing products. These products are described as “maintenance” air fresheners and are

designed to maintain a constant scent over a long period of time, relying on the product’s higher

fragrance content. 

Product Formulation:

Double-phase products form the majority of the sales and emissions from aerosol air

fresheners. The 1997 Survey indicates that these products have an average VOC content of

approximately 30 percent. Double-phase products generally contain two liquid phases and a gas

phase containing the hydrocarbon propellant. 

The liquid phases consist of a larger water phase and a smaller organic phase(s). As

reported in the Survey, another solvent that may be present in aerosol air fresheners is acetone. 

The organic phase(s) is generally made up of liquefied hydrocarbon propellant, emulsifiers, and

fragrance oils (ARB, 1998). When the product is shaken, the emulsifiers produce a homogenous

oil-in-water emulsion that allows the product to be uniformly sprayed. 

The propellants used are typically blends of butanes and propane. Depending on the blend

and the desired pressure, they generally constitute 25 to 30 percent of the product’s weight. As in

most other aerosol products, the propellants in aerosol air fresheners are present in both liquid

and gas phases. In the liquid phase, the propellant sits atop the denser liquid phase(s) and

functions as a reservoir to replenish the propellant in the gas phase. The gas phase provides the

pressure that discharges the product. 

Fragrance oils, mostly present in the solvent phase, constitute up to two percent of the

product’s weight. They produce the product’s scent. Although these are VOCs by definition, the 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 102

Consumer Products Regulations allow an exemption of up to two percent-by-weight of the

product, as long as the vapor pressure is less than 2 millimeters mercury (mm Hg) at 20 degrees

Celsius. 

Emulsifiers are used in the product formulation to aid mixing of the fragrance oil in the

water phase by creating a homogeneous liquid that can be sprayed. Because the desired

emulsions are oil-in-water, surfactants with higher hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) values are

more suitable in oil-in-water formulations (ICI Surfactants, 1992; 1997). Some examples of 

surfactants that can be used include Span® and Tween®. Another option for producing an

emulsion in the product is the use of low-vapor pressure VOCs (LVP-VOCs) in the formulation 

(ARB, 1998). Typically, the emulsifiers in the product are less than 10 percent-by-weight of the

product (ARB, 1998).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The proposed VOC limit for double-phase aerosol air fresheners is 20 percent by weight. 

As shown in Table VI-12, a 20 percent VOC limit would result in emission reductions of 

3,000 pounds per day, or about 1.5 tons per day statewide. While there are no products reported

in the 1997 Survey that comply with the proposed limit of 20 percent by weight, ARB staff

believes that the limit is both technologically and commercially feasible. Because it is a

challenging VOC limit however, ARB staff is proposing to provide manufacturers with over five

years, until December 31, 2004, to produce complying products. 

Table VI-12

Double-Phase Air Fresheners Proposal*

Product Form (wt. %) Products (%) (lbs./day)**

Proposed Complying Adjusted Emission

VOC Limit Complying Market Share Reductions

Double-Phase 20 0 0 3000

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Reformulating Aerosol Air Fresheners

The sales weighted average VOC content of double-phase air fresheners, including the

fragrance component, is 30 percent by weight. As described above, the main ingredients in typical

double-phase air fresheners are water, emulsifiers, hydrocarbon propellants, and fragrance oils. 

The emulsifiers typically used are LVP-VOCs and are not regulated as VOCs. In general, other

than the fragrance oils, the only VOC ingredient is the hydrocarbon propellant. Hence, we expect

that the most logical reformulation option would include some modification of the propellant. 

However, when the VOC propellant content is reduced, manufacturers have indicated that the

vapor pressure in the product may not be sufficient to empty the contents of the product (SC

Johnson). They further indicate that the volume of propellant lost would most likely be made up
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 103

by the addition of water, which would produce a wetter spray (Reckitt, SC Johnson). 

To determine the available reformulation options for manufacturers of aerosol air

fresheners, we evaluated products reported in the 1997 Survey, held numerous discussions with

industry representatives, reviewed the technical literature, searched through the United States

Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Database, and consulted with a researcher in

academia. These reviews provided insight on some of the approaches manufacturers may take to

comply with the proposed limit. Some of these options include, but are not limited to, the use of

non-VOC propellants, the use of dispersion and emulsion systems, or the use of high vapor

pressure propellant and solvent. While these are not intended to be all-inclusive, the discussions

shown below should reasonably cover the likely formulation approaches companies would take. 

Replacement of Hydrocarbon Propellants with Non-VOC Liquefied Propellants

One method of reformulation would be to replace a portion of the hydrocarbon propellant

with a non-VOC propellant such as hydrofluorocarbon-152a (HFC-152a). With a propellant

blend of HFC-152a and hydrocarbon propellant, sufficient vapor pressure could be attained to

empty the product contents completely. As reported in the 1997 Survey for single-phase aerosol

air fresheners, HFC-152a is currently in use as a co-propellant with a hydrocarbon propellant in 

organic-based formulations and also is in use as the sole propellant in a water-based formulation. 

Therefore, since HFC-152a can successfully be used to discharge a single-phase air freshener from

the container, it is reasonable that it could also be successfully used in double-phase air fresheners

to discharge the product. 

As further evidence that HFC-152a may successfully be used as a reformulation option for

double-phase air fresheners, in a recent journal article, two prototype double-phase aerosol air

freshener formulations are presented (Johnsen). The article indicates that HFC-152a can be used

in water-based aerosol air fresheners with no special corrosion or valve problems (Johnsen). The

formulations, as shown below, suggest propellant blends of HFC-152a with the hydrocarbon

propellant isobutane. Both formulations result in a final VOC content of 20 percent. 

Formulas for Possible Isobutane/HFC-152a Water-based Aerosol Air Fresheners

Ingredients Type 1 Type 2

Fragrance 0.80 % 0.80 %

Witcamide 511, et al. 0.20 0.20

Sodium Nitrite 0.10 0.10

Ammonium Benzoate 0.10 0.10

Deionized Water 72.80 68.80

Isobutane A-31 20.00 20.00

HFC-152a (CH3-CF2) 6.00 10.00

Actual VOC 20 20

 Source: Spray Tech. & Marketing, Aug. 1999, p. 46 (Johnsen).

It has also been suggested that a four-to-one ratio of hydrocarbon propellant blend A-55

(55 psi) to HFC-152a (62 psi) may be a feasible option because the blend pressure does not vary
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 104

significantly and could continue to deliver at near constant pressure (Frauenheim; DuPont). 

However in this case, the substitution of a non-VOC propellant, such as HFC-152a, for a

hydrocarbon propellant is not necessarily accomplished on a one-to-one percent basis. If this

option is chosen, the product’s water content would need to be increased. Higher water content

could lead to a wetter spray due to larger particle size being discharged. To counter this effect,

vapor taps could be used to produce a drier spray. The valve mechanism may also be modified to

allow better break-up of the aerosol spray droplets. 

Use of Surfactants

The increase in water content may also decrease the miscibility of the fragrance and other

organic compounds in the water phase. This effect may be mitigated by adding blends of

surfactants and emulsifiers to the product. Surfactants aid in the mixing of the organic and water

phases in the product to produce oil-in-water emulsions. Emulsion is necessary to allow the

fragrance molecules to be discharged along with the water from the can. Surfactants can be

categorized into many different types. Some candidate surfactants which may aid in mixing are

blends of single-tailed or double-tailed non-ionic surfactants, cationic surfactants and/or anionic

surfactants. 

Available technology of dispersion and emulsion systems already allows complying

formulations to be developed. Although some of the research and technology of the particulars in

these systems have been patented as early as 1989, advancement and understanding of emulsion

technology have yielded products that are efficacious and have low VOC content (Patent, 1989;

Patent, 1990; Patent, 1992; ARB, 1998). Through the manipulation of emulsion systems, waterbased single-phase aerosol products already have formulations that would comply with the

proposed VOC limit. Water-based single-phase products require emulsion systems that are

thermodynamically-stable to maintain a homogenized phase throughout the usable life of the

product (Waterbury, 1999a). Because double-phase aerosol products can allow mild instability of

the emulsion and thereby, phase separation, double-phase aerosol products are comparatively

easier to reformulate than single-phase products (Scott’s; Waterbury, 1999a). We expect that the

emulsion technology being employed in single-phase air fresheners could be used to help

reformulate low VOC double-phase aerosol air fresheners.

Patents for Low VOC Double-Phase Air Fresheners

A search of the USPTO database revealed patents that suggest formulations and

preparations for aerosol air fresheners that would yield complying products. The patents describe

improved emulsion systems created through the use of surfactants. Note that in each patent,

typical hydrocarbon propellants are used to produce air fresheners that would have VOC contents

below the proposed 20 percent limit. 

U.S. Patent 4,904,464, “Insecticide and Air Freshener Preparations” and U.S. Patent 4,826,674,

“Air Freshener Preparations,” filed August 29, 1988, and March 4, 1985, respectively, Albanese,

James J., United Industries Corporation (Patent, 1989; Patent, 1990). 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 105

The patents describe a type of emulsion system that utilizes cocodiethanolamide 

(an LVP-VOC) as the dispersal agent. One of the objects of this double-phase system is to

provide a preparation with a “markedly-reduced” amount of propellant used in an aerosol air

freshener. Other objectives include providing a preparation that has a “substantially indefinite

shelf life” and is “economically produced in accordance with well known production techniques so

that novel instrumentation and equipment are not required.” A sample aerosol air freshener

formulation encompassed by the patent and which meets the proposed limit is as follows: 

Example

Ingredient In the Can

Rose Fragrance 0.25%

Ethanol* 2.00%

Cocodiethanolamide 1.00%

Water 81.75%

Isobutane 12.6%

Propane 2.4%

Total VOC 17%

*The ethanol serves to control particle size. 

Source: U.S. Patent 4,904,464, “Insecticide and Air Freshener Preparations” and U.S. Patent 4,826,674, “Air

Freshener Preparations,” filed August 29, 1988 and March 4, 1985, respectively, Albanese, James J., United

Industries Corporation. 

As shown above, the double-phase air freshener formulation developed has a VOC

content of only 17 percent using a hydrocarbon propellant blend of isobutane and propane. It is

also important to note that this patented technology will become publicly available before the

effective date of the new limit (patent expires March 27, 2001, nearly four years prior to the

proposed effective date). 

U.S. Patent 5,145,604, “Aqueous Emulsion and Aerosol Delivery System Using Same,”

Neumiller, Phillip J., S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc, filed February 6, 1992.

This patent covers an aqueous emulsion system that has the capacity to entrap or reservoir

the propellant through the use of surfactants to effect a constant pressure over the usable life of 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 106

the product. A sample complying aerosol air freshener formulation obtained from the patent is as

follows:

Example

Ingredient In the Can

Methylparaben 0.2%

Ethanol 0.5%

Monamid 150 ADY 1.5%

Glycerol 1.0%

Neodol 1 0.1%

IFF Fragrance 6673-AP 0.3%

Deionized Water 87.4%

Propane 3.0%

Butane 6.0%

Total VOC 9.5%

Source: U.S. Patent 5,145,604, “Aqueous Emulsion and Aerosol Delivery System Using Same,” Neumiller, 

Phillip J., S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., filed February 6, 1992.

As shown above, the formulation developed has a VOC content of less than 10 percent,

using a blend of propane and butane as propellant. Additional formulations using differing

concentrations and combinations of surfactants (e.g., Span® and Tween®) are also listed in this

patent. It is likely that this new technology has not been tested for use in large scale production. 

It is also expected that more research and development would be required to produce an

efficacious product. As mentioned earlier, however, ARB staff is proposing to provide

manufacturers with over five years, until December 31, 2004, to produce complying products. 

These two patented technologies provide further potential reformulation options that, with

more research, could lead to production of efficacious low-VOC double-phase air fresheners. 

Use of High Vapor Pressure Propellant and Exempt Solvent for Double-Phase 

Formulation

A manufacturer may also consider reformulating double-phase aerosol products through

the use of high vapor pressure propellant and exempt VOC solvent. According to the 1997

survey, acetone is used in some single- and double-phase aerosol air fresheners. Acetone is an

exempt VOC solvent that is fast drying and is completely miscibile with water. Acetone also

would increase the vapor pressure in the product because the vapor pressure of acetone is

186 mm Hg at 20 degrees Celsius. Therefore, use of acetone may be used to reduce the amount

of propellant needed to discharge the product. An example formulation that may include acetone

would use water along with the higher pressure propellants propane and dimethyl ether

(Waterbury, 1999b). 

Issues: 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 107

1. Issue: It is not possible to formulate a double-phase aerosol air freshener with a lower

VOC content. 

Response: Staff acknowledges that reformulating to the proposed 20 percent VOC

content limit will be challenging. However, technology exists to produce double-phase aerosol air

fresheners with a 20 percent VOC content. As stated above, reformulation options include use of

HFC-152a in the propellant blend, use of acetone as a co-solvent, and/or use of a dispersion or

emulsion system. Our proposal is also supported by the fact that there are already single-phase

products in the Survey that contain less than 20 percent VOC by weight. The 

low-VOC technology from these products may be used to aid in the reformulation for the 

double-phase products. However, in order to allow manufacturers sufficient time to reformulate,

it is proposed that the 20 percent by weight VOC limit be effective December 31, 2004. 

2. Issue: Reformulating with HFC-152a will require use of a more expensive “DOT 2Q” can

because it has a higher pressure. HFC-152a is also a global-warming gas. 

Response: Depending on the concentration of HFC-152a and the partial pressure of the

trapped air at 130 degrees Fahrenheit, a 20-to-10 ratio of isobutane A-31 to HFC-152a

(161±6 pounds per square inch gage pressure at 130 degrees Fahrenheit) suggests that a “DOT 2Q”

can should be used (Johnsen). However, with a 20-to-6 ratio of isobutane A-31 to HFC-152a

(154±6 pounds per square inch gage pressure at 130 degrees Fahrenheit); i.e., a lower

concentration of HFC-152a; a less costly “DOT 2P” can could be used (Johnsen). ARB staff

acknowledges that HFC-152a emissions contribute to global-warming. A discussion of the

potential environmental impact of using HFC-152a in aerosol products is provided in Chapter VII. 

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Staff Report, “Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions from Consumer Products.” August, 1990. (ARB, 1990a)

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document, “Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products.” August, 1990. (ARB, 1990b)

Air Resources Board, “Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of

Comments and Agency Responses: Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of a Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products.” 

October, 1990. (ARB, 1990c)

Air Resources Board, “1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey.” February 28, 1998. 

(ARB, 1998)

DuPont Fluoroproducts. Mail correspondence with ARB staff. July 21, 1999. (DuPont)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 108

Frauenheim, J. R. Spray Technology & Marketing. “Hydrocarbon Propellants in the ‘90s.” 

Page 21. July, 1991. (Frauenheim)

ICI Surfactants. The HLB System. Page 5. May, 1992. (ICI Surfactants, 1992)

ICI Surfactants. Internet site. “HLB System.” Http://www.surfactant.com/HLBSystem.html. 

1997. (ICI Surfactants, 1997)

Johnsen, M. A. Spray Technology & Marketing. “VOCs: The Nemesis of Aerosol Air

Fresheners.” Pages 38-47. August, 1999. (Johnsen)

Reckitt & Colman. Meeting with ARB Staff on June 15, 1999. (Reckitt)

S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Video conference with ARB Staff on August 17, 1999. (SC Johnson)

Scott’s Liquid Gold. Telephone conversation with ARB Staff on June 25, 1999. (Scott’s)

U.S. Patent 4,826,674. “Air Freshener Preparations.” Albanese, James J. United Industries

Corporation. Filed March 4, 1985. Date of Patent: May 2, 1989. (Patent, 1989)

U.S. Patent 4,904,464. “Insecticide and Air Freshener Preparations.” Albanese, James J. United

Industries Corporation. Filed August 29, 1988. Date of Patent: February 27, 1990. 

(Patent, 1990)

U.S. Patent 5,145,604. “Aqueous Emulsion and Aerosol Delivery System Using Same.” 

Neumiller, Phillip J. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.. Filed February 6, 1992. Date of Patent: 

September 8, 1992. (Patent, 1992)

Waterbury. Telephone conversation with ARB Staff on April 8, 1999. (Waterbury, 1999a)

Waterbury. Telephone conversation with ARB Staff on August 25, 1999. (Waterbury, 1999b)

G. Engine Degreasers

Product Category Description:

Engine degreasers are specialty cleaning products designed to remove grease, grime, oil

and other contaminants from the external surfaces of automotive engines and other mechanical

parts while the engine remains in the engine bay. These products can also be used to clean

engines on motorcycles, boats, lawnmowers, and other powered vehicles.

When the ARB first regulated engine degreasers in 1990, ARB staff found that aerosol
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 109

products comprised the entire engine degreaser market (ARB, 1990, at 35). At that time, the

Board adopted a 50 percent VOC limit effective January 1, 1996. It is interesting to note that the

market has subsequently bifurcated into aerosols and liquid/pump products, with the liquid

products now representing the majority of engine degreaser sales in California (by weight). 

According to the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, 

46 manufacturers and marketers reported selling 70 aerosol and liquid product lines in California

during 1997. These products were sold at the rate of approximately 11.85 tons per day, thereby

releasing about 1.75 tons per day of VOCs (3,500 pounds per day). Although comprising only

about 38 percent of sales, the aerosol products represented a disproportionate part of the VOC

emissions from this category, emitting about 1.67 tons per day of VOCs or 95 percent of the

total. The VOC content in engine degreasers ranged from zero to 60 percent by weight for the

liquids and zero to 100 percent by weight for the aerosols. Table VI-13 below tabulates the

Survey results, with the VOC emissions adjusted for survey under-reporting. 

Table VI-13

Engine Degreasers*

Product Form Products (lbs/day) (lbs./day)**

Number of Category Sales Emissions

Adjusted VOC

Aerosol 48 9,823 3,340

Liquid 22 16,000 160

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:

As noted earlier, engine degreasers clean engine surfaces of oil, grease, grime, soil, and

other contaminants. Typically, the entire cleaning process requires a combination of chemical and

physical action to remove the engine surface contaminants. As a first step, many products instruct

users to apply the product when the engine is still warm; other products even direct the user to

leave the engine running while applying the product. Next, the products are sprayed on to the

engine surfaces, using various combinations of solvents to first dissolve the contaminants. Most

products direct the user to wait 10 to 15 minutes to allow the solvents to penetrate the oil and

grime. For tough-to-remove deposits, the user may need to scrub the soil with a brush. At this

point, surfactants in water-based products emulsify the dissolved oil into the water contained in

the product. The final step requires the user to rinse the emulsified mixture to wash away the

contaminants (users are directed to dispose of the rinsate in accordance with applicable

environmental regulations).

Engine degreasers are used by household, commercial and institutional consumers. 

Commercial and institutional users include fleet managers, car washes, automotive detail shops,
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 110

and car dealerships. As noted earlier, engine degreasers are marketed in both aerosol and

liquid/pump forms; however, no clear data were available on the breakdown of product use by

form and type of consumer. The products are typically used by themselves, but can be combined

with steam or high pressure wash cleaning to maximize the cleaning effectiveness. 

Product Formulation:

Engine degreasers marketed as liquids and pumps tend to have high water content, with

some combination of organic solvents, such as d-limonene and butyl cellosolve, with a relatively

high amount of surfactant to help emulsify the engine surface contaminants. The amount of

regulated VOCs in these products is quite low; in fact, we estimate based on the 1997 Survey that

96 percent of the liquid and pump engine degreaser market would meet the proposed 

5 percent VOC limit.

Aerosol engine degreasers vary in formulation, but most share several common features. 

Most use either a hydrocarbon propellant (some blend of propane, butane, or isobutane) or

carbon dioxide to propel the can contents onto the engine surface. The combination of propellant

and spray system is chosen to provide a forceful stream, rather than a misty spray, to enhance the

product’s cleaning ability. Because it is more desirable to have a forceful stream, aerosol engine

degreasers do not need as much propellant as other product categories, with typical hydrocarbon

propellant contents of around 10 percent by weight (Survey, 1998).

The solvent content in engine degreasers varies, and the difference in solvent content often

translates into different marketing terminologies. According to one manufacturer, aerosol engine

degreasers are often marketed as either an engine degreaser or engine cleaner (Wells, 1999). The

implication is that products with relatively high VOC content (approximately 50 percent) are geared

more for heavy duty engine degreasing, while lower VOC content products are designed for lightduty maintenance cleaning of engine surfaces. However, it is not clear from either the product

labels or the 1997 Survey whether there is any correlation between VOC content and the use of the

term “degreaser” versus “cleaner.” For example, “Tech 2000 Engine Degreaser,” 

“STP Heavy Duty Engine Degreaser,” and “Wynn’s Professional Products Engine Degreaser” are 

low-VOC products that can comply with the proposed limit, but higher VOC products such as “K&W

Products Engine Cleaner and Degreaser,” “Valvoline Low VOC Engine Cleaner & Degreaser,” and

“Lilly Industry Engine Cleaner” would not comply as currently formulated 

(Survey, 1998).

The solvents in current engine degreasers include a wide variety of hydrocarbon and

oxygenated compounds. Many of the older formulations use medium to high boiling-range petroleum

distillates (e.g., kerosene, aromatic solvents such as Hysol 15), while newer formulations often use d-

®

limonene, 2-butoxyethanol, isopropanol and glycol ethers. Those products that contain water also

have surfactants and corrosion inhibitors (e.g. ammonium hydroxide).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 111

Unlike the existing 50 percent VOC limit for all forms of engine degreasers, we are

proposing to bifurcate the limits for this category, with a 5 percent VOC limit for nonaerosol

products and a 35 percent VOC limit for aerosol engine degreasers, both effective on 

December 31, 2004. As Table VI-12 below shows, there are 11 nonaerosol and 14 aerosol

products that currently meet the proposed limits.

It is clear from Table VI-14 that the majority of the nonaerosol market would easily meet

the proposed new limit. We are proposing the new limit for nonaerosols to obtain emission

reductions, but more importantly, to prevent nonaerosol emissions from increasing if they were

subject to the same limit as the aerosol products. Because of the existing high rate of compliance

with the proposed new limit, we do not expect any significant adverse impacts to the nonaerosol

portion of the market.

While not as high as the nonaerosol products, the compliance rate of aerosol products

with the proposed new limit is also significant. Based on the 1997 Survey, we estimate the

complying market share for aerosol products to be 46 percent by weight.

Table VI-14

Engine Degreasers Proposal*

Product Form (wt. %) Products (%) Reductions (lbs./day)**

Proposed Complying

VOC Limit Complying Market Share Adjusted Emission

Aerosol 35 14 46 740

Nonaerosol 5 11 96 100

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

The proposed new limits are technically and commercially feasible for several reasons. 

First, it is the minimum amount of VOC which industry representatives support as technically

feasible (CSMA, ACMC). Second, as noted earlier, the complying market shares for both

nonaerosol and aerosol products are high. The fact that affected companies would have over five

years to develop complying formulations using the various reformulation approaches discussed

below ensures that the proposed limits meet the statutory requirements for commercial and

technological feasibility.

Reformulating Nonaerosol Engine Degreasers

For nonaerosol products, we expect manufacturers of noncompliant products to formulate

products similar to the compliant products which comprise 96 percent of the market. In general,

this would require increasing the water content while reducing or replacing the VOC solvents in

the products (e.g., 2-butoxyethanol, medium boiling range aliphatics) with d-limonene or some

similar solvent that’s suitable in high-water content products (see Appendix E). D-limonene is
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 112

currently used by most compliant formulations and works well in engine degreasers because of its

high solvency; its Kauri-Butanol value is 61, which compares favorably to odorless kerosene

(KB=27) and naphthol spirits (KB=33.5) (Arrison, 1993).

Because we expect the reformulation of nonaerosol engine degreasers to be relatively

straightforward, the remainder of this discussion will focus on the reformulation options for

manufacturers of aerosol engine degreasers.

Reformulating Aerosol Engine Degreasers

To determine the available reformulation options for manufacturers of aerosol engine

degreasers, we evaluated the products reported in the 1997 Survey, held numerous discussions

with industry representatives, reviewed the technical literature, and searched through the United

States Patent Office’s (USPTO) Patent Database. These reviews provided insight on some of the

approaches manufacturers can take to comply with the proposed limit; while these are not

intended to be all-inclusive, the discussions shown below should reasonably cover the likely

formulation approaches companies will take.

General Approach

In general, we expect companies to reformulate noncomplying aerosol engine degreasers

with the focus on replacing regulated VOC solvents with non-VOCs, non-regulated solvents 

(i.e., LVP-VOC solvents), or water-compatible VOC solvents that permit a high water content in

the aerosol can. While the proposed limit is designed to allow compliance without a wholesale

switch to non-VOC liquefied propellants (e.g., HFC-152a or HFC-134a), a discussion of some

approaches for changing propellants is also included for informational purposes.

Use of Non-VOC Solvents

There are several organic compounds which are considered negligibly-ozone forming and

are therefore exempt from the definition of VOC under section 94508 (title 17, CCR). These

include acetone; methyl acetate; volatile methyl siloxanes (VMS); various CFCs and HCFCs;

perchloroethylene (perc); methylene chloride (MEC); and parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF). 

However, because of volatility that’s too high for use in engine degreasers (acetone, methyl

acetate), environmental or health concerns (CFCs/HCFCs, perc, MEC), or high cost 

(VMS, $10 per pound or more), the literature focuses mainly on PCBTF as a potential non-VOC

that can be used in engine degreasers.

The Occidental Chemical Corporation (Oxychem) notes that PCBTF (Oxsol 100 ) can be ®

used in engine degreasers (Ostrowski, 1993) because it has “classical solvent performance”

(Oxychem, 1999). Oxychem also states that, because PCBTF is not miscible in water, its removal

from the wastewater should be easier than with other solvents because the PCBTF will float on

top of the water stream (Id., at 1). PCBTF has a Kauri-Butanol value of 64 (Ostrowski, op cit.,
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 113

at 44), which is comparable to the d-limonene used in many existing engine degreasers.

Use of LVP-VOCs

Many aerosol engine degreasers, including several of the market leaders, currently use

high boiling (greater than 216 C) petroleum distillates which qualify as non-regulated VOCs o

under section 94508 of the consumer products regulation (Survey, 1998; Morgester, 1997). We

expect that some manufacturers will increase their existing use of these distillates or will switch

over to these solvents if they are not using them at this time. At least one municipal wastewater

treatment agency in California recommends the use of kerosene and similar high boiling distillates

in place of gasoline for degreasing engines because these compounds can be removed from the

wastewater stream (Flynn and Kessler, at 13).

Other LVP-VOC solvents that have been recently marketed by major solvent suppliers

show significant potential for use in engine degreasers. These include LVP-VOCs from Exxon

Chemical (Exxate , Exxsol , Norpar , and Isopar series), Shell Chemical (Neosolv ), and others ® ® ® ® ®

(Exxon, 1999c; Shell, 1999). In particular, Exxon reports KB values for Exxate 1000, 1300, ®

and Aromatic 200 as 111, 89 and “>99,” respectively, which indicate that these LVP fluids have

similar degreasing ability as 1,1,1-trichloroethane, the solvent of choice until it was phased out

due to ozone-depletion concerns (Exxon, 1999a). Reynolds and Schreiner report the

development of an engine degreaser formulation with zero reportable VOCs using Exxsol D110 ®

and Exxate 1000 to replace the kerosene and ethylene-based glycol ether in the existing product ®

(Reynolds and Schreiner, 1993).

Exxon also reports that many of their LVP fluids meet the criterion of “readily

biodegradable” when tested under the European Organization of Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) method 301F (Manometric Respirometry). This method defines a material

as “readily biodegradable” when 60% or greater of the tested material is degraded in a

standardized 28 day test. The OECD’s method 301F is recommended under the GSA’s

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) program for determining biodegradability. In

carefully controlled side-by-side biodegradability tests using the same method, the Exxsol LVP

fluids biodegraded at a rate similar to d-limonene while the Norpar and Exxate LVP fluids

biodegraded considerably faster (Exxon, 1999b).

Other solvents that qualify as LVP-VOCs and can be used in engine degreasers include

some compounds known as alkyl biphenyls. Arrison reports a starting engine degreaser formula

using alkyl biphenyls (NUSOLV series) that has less than 20 percent VOC (Arrison, 1993). He TM

cites the good K-B solvency values (KB=55-65), good biodegradability, and thermal stability 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 114

even on a very hot engine as desirable properties for a successful engine degreaser formulation 

(Id., at 2-3).

Use of Highly Water-Compatible VOC Solvents

Microemulsion systems and terpene-based formulations have also been identified in the

literature as potentially useful approaches to comply with the proposed limit. Dow Chemical

specifically identifies aerosol engine degreasers as a potential application for its INVERT line of

products (Dow Chemical, 1994). Dow Chemical reports that its INVERT solvent-continuous

microemulsions (“tiny droplets of water suspended in a sea of solvent”) allow up to 50 percent

water in a product while providing performance superior to aromatic and high-flash hydrocarbons

and comparable performance to a 1,1,1-trichloroethane based cleaner (3-minute cold cleaning

comparison of commercial brake cleaners; Id.).

Terpenes have been available to the consumer products industry for many years; one in

particular, d-limonene, is used in many existing engine degreaser formulations, as noted

previously. Gallagher notes that engine degreasing can be done very effectively with low-VOC

terpene emulsions (Gallagher, 1993, at 7). He also points out that, like PCBTF, terpenes’

relatively low solubility in water can be an advantage to commercial and institutional users, since

the terpenes floating on top of the water can be more easily removed, thereby reducing

wastewater disposal and treatment costs (Id., at 5).

Replacement of Hydrocarbon Propellants with Non-VOC Liquefied Propellants

Dr. Lynn Applegate of DuPont reports two prototype engine degreaser formulations

developed by DuPont (Applegate, 1995). As shown below, the formulations developed have a

reportable VOC content of less than 20 percent, giving formulators additional flexibility to

develop products with even higher solvent content while still meeting the proposed limit of 

35 percent. It should also be noted that, because propellant content in engine degreasers is

relatively low compared to other categories, the replacement of hydrocarbon propellants with 

some dimethyl ether (DME) or HFC-152a should not result in a significant adverse impact on raw

material costs for these products.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 115

DuPont-developed Engine Degreaser Formulations

Prototype Engine Cleaner Prototype Foaming Engine Cleaner

Ingredient A B C Ingredient A B C

Kerosene 10 10 8 Kerosene 10 10 8

Xylene --- --- 2

G-3300 10 10 10 G-3300 10 10 10

Hi Sil T-600 2 3 3

CMC 1 0.5 1

DI Water 70.5 69.5 69.5 DI Water 71.5 72 74

Dimethyl Ether 5 5 5 Dimethyl Ether 5 5 ---

A-108 (Propane) 2.5 2.5 2.5 A-108 (Propane) 2.5 2.5 ---

HFC-152a --- --- 5

Actual VOC 17.5 17.5 17.5 Actual VOC 17.5 17.5 8

 Source: Spray Tech. & Marketing, July 1995, p.30.

Patents

A search of the USPTO database revealed several patents which suggest different

approaches manufacturers can pursue to develop complying formulations. U.S. Patent 4,302,365,

“Engine Degreaser Composition,” issued to Holmgren, William C. and Charles E. Hiddema,

American Grease Stick Company, filed February 11, 1980.

This patent describes a foamy type engine degreaser composition consisting of an opaque,

viscous emulsion having a high water content. A controlled amount of water is added to middle

distillate degreasers such as kerosene, naphtha, fuel oil and/or heavy naphtha to form an emulsion

which thickens the solvent and causes foaming. A sample complying aerosol engine degreaser

formulation encompassed by the patent is as follows:

80% concentrate In the Can

Sodium lauryl sulfate 2.4%

Triethanolamine 0.8%

Xylene 10.4%

Butylcellosolve 0.8%

Water 65.6%

20% HC propellant 20.0%

Total VOC 32%

It is important to note that, not only will this formulation comply with the proposed limit,
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 116

but it will become publicly available before the effective date of the new limit (patent expires Feb.

11, 2000, nearly four years prior to proposed effective date).

U.S. Patent 4,483,783, “Solvent Preparation,” Albanese, James J., United Industries Corporation,

filed April 15, 1982.

This patent describes a dispersion comprised of a water-soluble solvent and

codiethanolamide as the dispersal agent. Like the patent discussed previously, this patent expires

in 2002, one and a half years before the proposed limit’s effective date, thereby giving

manufacturers a royalty-free formulation to further develop. A sample aerosol engine degreaser

formulation encompassed by the patent and which meets the proposed limit is as follows:

80% concentrate In the Can

Hi-Sol 15® (aromatic solvent) 12%

LVP solvent (e.g., Exxate 1200®) 24%

Cocodiethanolamide (disperser) 0.4%

Water 43.6%

20% HC propellant 20.0%

Total VOC 32%

U.S. Patent 4,867,911, “Surface Treating Water-in-Oil Emulsion Composition and Method,” and 

U.S. Patent 4,891,073, “Method of Treating Surface with Water-in-Oil Emulsion Composition,” 

filed January 19, 1988, and April 13, 1989, respectively, Shortt, Alexandra B. and D.V.

Satyanarayana Gupta, Pennzoil Products Company.

This patent describes a surface-treating, low-stability, water-in-oil emulsion particularly

adapted for cleaning a surface; the composition is comprised of at least one liquid hydrocarbon oil

solvent, water, and an emulsifying agent comprising an N-alkanoyl-2,2'-iminobis 

(ethyl alkanoate). Sample complying, aerosol engine degreaser formulations encompassed by the

patent were shown as follows:

Ingredient Formula A Formula B

Kerosene (50% LVP) 15.0% 15.0%

Xylene 15.875% 15.975%

Lauric diethanolamide 0.125% 0.025%

 diester emulsifier

Water 68.3% 68.3%

Sodium benzoate 0.2% 0.2%

Nitrogen (propellant) 0.5% 0.5%

Total VOC 23.375% 23.475%

Both formulations were reported as exhibiting satisfactory performance.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 117

U.S. Patent 4,772,415, “Heavy Duty Degreaser Composition and Method of Use,” 

Adone, Donald J., filed December 22, 1986.

This patent describes a water-based, non-toxic, biodegradable, heavy duty degreaser

composition which is “particularly useful for cleaning containers, engines, pipes, and processing

equipment employed in the marine and refining industries.” A sample complying aerosol engine

degreaser formulation encompassed by the patent is as follows:

80% concentrate In the Can

 C9-C11 primary alcohol ethoxylates 5.6-9.6%

 Alkali metal silicate 1.6-4.0%

 Alkaline metal hydroxide solution 0.4-1.6%

 Isopropanol 1.2-3.2%

 Tetraalkaline metal salt of

 ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid 0.16-0.8%

 Water 60.8-71.0%

20% HC propellant 20.0%

Total VOC 26.8-32.8%

U.S. Patent 5,080,822, “Aqueous Degreaser Compositions Containing an Organic Solvent and a

Solubilizing Coupler,” and U.S. Patent 5,419,848, “Aqueous Degreaser Emulsion Compositions,”

VanEenam, Donald N., Buckeye International, Inc., filed on April 10, 1990, and July 2, 1993,

respectively.

This patent describes compositions formulated to have “markedly improved degreasing

efficacy” relative to existing formulations. A sample complying aerosol engine degreaser

formulation encompassed by the patent is as follows:

94.5% concentrate In the Can

 2-phenoxyethanol (Dowanol EPh = LVP) 2.85%

 Sodium pelargonate, 

 45% Monatrope 1250 (assumed LVP) 6.65%

 Sodium nitrite 0.2%

 Ammonium hydroxide 0.05%

 Water 84.75%

5.5% A-55 HC propellant 5.5%

Total VOC 5.5-12.2%

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document, “Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products”, August, 1990b. (ARB, 1990b)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 118

Air Resources Board, “1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey”, February 28, 1998. 

(Survey, 1998)

Applegate, Lynn E., Ph.D., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours, Inc., “Formulating with DME, HFC-152a,

and HFC-134a Propellants,” Spray Technology & Marketing, July 1995, p.30. (Applegate, 1995)

Arrison, William Q., Ridge Technologies, Inc., “The Alkyl Biphenyls, a New Class of Non-VOC

Solvents,” presented at the California Air Resources Board Automotive Specialty Products and

Regulatory Seminar, June 29-30, 1993, San Francisco, CA. (Arrison, 1993)

Dow Chemical Company, “Dow Announces Microemulsion Solvent Technology,” Spray

Technology & Marketing, November 1994, p. 12. (Dow Chemical, 1994)

Exxon Chemical Company, “LVP Fluids: Aerosol Propellant Solubility,”

<http://www.exxon.com/exxonchemical/mp/lvp/formulations.htm>, visited on 7/26/99. 

(Exxon, 1999a)

Exxon Chemical Company, “LVP Fluids: Biodegradability of LVP Fluids,”

<http://www.exxon.com/exxonchemical/mp/lvp/pro_bio.htm>, visited on 7/26/99b. 

(Exxon, 1999b)

Exxon Chemical Company, “LVP Fluids: Table of Typical Properties,”

<http://www.exxon.com/exxonchemical/mp/lvp/pro_table.htm>, visited on 7/26/99c. 

(Exxon, 1999c)

Gallagher, R. Scott and Michael F. Wyatt, Glidco Organics Corporation, “The Use of Terpene

Solvents in the Formulation of Environmentally Safe, Low VOC Automotive Cleaning Products,”

presented at the California Air Resources Board Automotive Specialty Products and Regulatory

Seminar, June 29-30, 1993, San Francisco, CA. (Gallagher, 1993)

Flynn, Alicia A. and Rory E. Kessler, A Consumer Guide to Safer Alternatives to Hazardous

Household Products, Part 2, Hazardous Waste Management Program, Office of Toxics and Solid

Waste Management, Department of Planning and Development, Santa Clara County of CA,

<http://www.es.epa.gov/new/contracts/newsltrs/shopping.html>, visited 7/25/99. (Flynn and

Kessler, 1999)

Morgester, James J., Chief, Compliance Division, ARB, letter and lab analysis attachment to Jim

Wells, Radiator Specialty, “Report of Violation No.: CP97-6-4,” July 29, 1997 (confirms diesel

#2, at least the cut used in EB-1, qualifies as 85% Low Vapor Pressure under ARB consumer

products regulation). (Morgester, 1997)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 119

Ostrowski, Philip J., “Benzotrifluoride Substitutes for VOCs and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane,”

proceedings of the California Air Resources Board “Automotive Specialty Products and

Regulatory Seminar,” June 29-30, 1993. (Ostrowski, 1993)

Oxychem (Occidental Chemical Corporation), Oxsol 100 Overview,

<http://www.oxychem.com/html/oxsol_100_overview.html>, visited 6/1/99. (Oxychem, 1999).

Reynolds, Jacqueline M. and James L. Schreiner, “Use of Exemption for ‘LVP’ Automotive

Chemicals to Assist in Meeting CARB VOC Emissions Regulations,” presented at the California

Air Resources Board Automotive Specialty Products and Regulatory Seminar, June 29-30, 1993,

San Francisco, CA. (Reynolds and Schreiner, 1993)

Shell Chemical Company, “Online Literature: NEOSOLV Specialty Solvents,” TM

<htpp://www2.shellchemical.com/CMM\WEB\GlobChem.NSF/Literature/SC:1967-96>, visited

on 7/21/99. (Shell, 1999)

U.S. Patent 4,302,365, “Engine Degreaser Composition,” Holmgren, William C. and Charles E.

Hiddema, American Grease Stick Company, filed February 11, 1980.

U.S. Patent 4,867,911, “Surface Treating Water-in-Oil Emulsion Composition and Method,”

Shortt, Alexandra B. and D.V. Satyanarayana Gupta, Pennzoil Products Company, filed 

January 19, 1988.

U.S. Patent 4,483,783, “Solvent Preparation,” Albanese, James J., United Industries Corporation,

filed April 15, 1982.

U.S. Patent 4,891,073, “Method of Treating Surface with Water-in-Oil Emulsion Composition,” 

Shortt, Alexandra B. and D.V. Satyanarayana Gupta, Pennzoil Products Company, filed

April 13, 1989.

Wells, James D., telephone conversation with ARB staff, ca. June 1999. (Wells, 1999)

H. Flying Bug Insecticides (aerosols)

Product Category Description:

Flying bug insecticides are products intended to be used primarily by consumers in the

control of flying household insects or pests such as flies, mosquitos and moths. These products

may also be used in janitorial, institutional or commercial settings, but do not include those

products designed specifically for use by licensed pest control operators (PCO’s).

All insecticides sold within California must be registered with the California Department of

Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and with the U.S. EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 120

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Insecticides used by PCO’s generally contain either higher levels of

active ingredients than their consumer-use counterparts or use ingredients which are deemed too

hazardous for consumer use. These products fall under the authority of the DPR, and are

excluded from this regulation since they are not available to the consumer.

Flying bug insecticides were regulated under “Phase II” of the consumer products

regulation which was adopted in January of 1992. At that time, the Board adopted a 35 percent

VOC limit for these products, effective January 1, 1995. For products subject to registration

requirements under FIFRA, an additional year is granted for compliance, so the actual effective

date was January of 1996. The staff report for the Phase II regulation contains additional

information on these products (ARB, 1991).

Most of the VOC emissions from flying bug insecticides are from aerosol products. 

Therefore, only the aerosol form is considered for a lower VOC content in this proposal. The

non-aerosol forms are typically liquids used to control the flying insect larvae rather than the

mature insects. The sales and emissions from the various product forms are presented in the table

below.

Table VI-15

Flying Bug Insecticides*

Product Form Products (lbs./day) Emissions (lbs/day)**

Number of Category Sales Adjusted VOC

Aerosols 43 3,960 1,200

Non-aerosols 17 8,640 40

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing

Flying bug insecticides are sold in supermarkets, mass merchandise outlets, hardware

stores, nurseries and other locations. These products are used around homes, offices, and

commercial and institutional areas to control mosquitos, flies, moths, gnats and other flying bugs. 

Due to similarities in active ingredients, flying insect killers may also be used to control crawling

insects such as ants, earwigs or roaches. 

Flying insect killers are typically aerosol products. The aerosol mist is dispensed into the

target area, and insects within that area either contact or inhale the insecticide and are rapidly

paralyzed and die. If the product is used within an enclosed area, that area is typically vacated

after application until the insecticide takes affect, then ventilated prior to use.

The non-aerosol flying insect killers are generally used to kill insect larvae. These include

liquids which may be applied to pools of water to kill mosquito larvae, and products which may
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 121

be sprayed on trash or other waste to kill maggots. Fly strips are also used to trap flies without

dispensing a toxic spray (Trumans, 1997; Dangerous Pests, 1998).

Product Formulation

Flying insect killers typically use pyrethrins and pyrethroids as the active ingredients in the

aerosol products (see Section E, Crawling Bug Insecticides, for a discussion of active

ingredients). The pyrethrins are usually synergized by piperonyl butoxide or other synergists. 

Pyrethrins and pyrethroids, while generally less than 1 percent of the product, provide for fast

knockdown, and when synergized, are very effective killers.

The current VOC limit for this category is 35 percent by weight. Most products, in

complying with this limit, are water-based aerosols which utilize a hydrocarbon propellant to

atomize the product. Propellants typically make up about 25 percent of the product. Pyrethrins

and hydrocarbon propellant are insoluble in water, so a small amount of surfactant or co-solvent is

added to emulsify the immiscible phases. The co-solvent, which may be up to 10 or 

15 percent of the product, may also aid in transporting the pyrethrins across the waxy cuticle of

the insect, increasing the speed of knockdown. These products generally require some shaking

prior to use to ensure adequate mixing.

An alternative approach to comply with the 35 percent VOC limit has been the use of LVP

hydrocarbon solvent. Rather than using a water-based formulation, some manufacturers have

simply replaced lighter distillates with an LVP distillate. The LVP distillate is completely miscible

with both the pyrethrins and hydrocarbon propellant. Hence, these products do not require

shaking prior to use. The LVP distillate, along with carrying the actives, may also aid in

transporting the active across the insect cuticle. Hydrocarbon distillates also display some

insecticidal activity.

The liquid products used to control larvae generally contain little or no VOC’s. These

products typically are water-based emulsions, containing less than 1 percent of emulsified actives. 

Likewise, the solvent-based sprays typically have a small amount of active dissolved in an LVP

distillate (Survey, 1998; Trumans, 1997; IPM, 1999).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The proposed limit for the aerosol product form is 25 percent VOC by weight effective

December 31, 2004. Industry associations and several major manufacturers of insecticides have

agreed that this limit is both technologically and commercially feasible. Currently, 7 aerosol

products already comply with this limit. A summary of the complying products and marketshare

is shown below in Table VI-16.

Table VI-16
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 122

Flying Bug Insecticides Proposal*

Product Form (wt. %) Products Share (%) (lbs./day)**

Proposed Emission

VOC Limit Complying Complying Market Reductions

Adjusted

Aerosols 25 7 13 220

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Manufacturers produce viable flying insect killers by designing their products to achieve

fine atomization. The spray must remain suspended for an adequate amount of time to allow

insects in the spray area to contact the mist particles. To remain in the air, the mist dispensed

must be no more than about 30 microns in diameter (Clorox, 1999). Particle size is a key

difference between crawling and flying bug killers, and is generally related to the amount of

propellant in the formulation.

Products which currently comply with the proposed 25 percent limit use a number of

formulation technologies. Most of the complying products are water-based formulas, using a

hydrocarbon propellant, an emulsifier and a light distillate or LVP solvent. Complying 

solvent-based products utilize exempt solvents such as acetone, exempt propellants such as 

HFC-152a, LVP petroleum distillates or a combination of these options.

It is expected that manufacturers will reformulate their products using technologies similar

to the complying products. Currently, propellant levels in these products tend to be about 25

percent to achieve the desired atomization. With the proposed limit set at 25 percent, a

manufacturer may maintain their current hydrocarbon propellant amount and replace their VOC

solvent with either an exempt solvent such as acetone or an LVP glycol ether. Alternatively, a

portion of the hydrocarbon propellant may be replaced with a non-VOC propellant such as

HFC-152a. For solvent-based products using LVP distillates to comply, the substitution of a light

exempt solvent such as acetone is also a possibility.

The amount of propellant in the container may also be reduced. Suitable atomization may

be achieved through the use of a vapor-tap valve. Hence, manufacturers may decrease the

amount of propellant in the product and add more water or LVP solvent.

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document, “Proposed Amendments to the Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - 

Phase II”, October, 1991b. (ARB, 1991)

Air Resources Board, “1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey”, February 28, 1998. 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 123

(Survey, 1998)

“Truman’s Scientific Guide to Pest Control Operations, Fifth Edition.” Advanstar

Communications, 1997. Gary W. Bennett, Ph. D, John M. Owens, Ph.D, Robert M. Corrigan,

Ph.D. (Trumans, 1997).

“Dangerous Pests - The Impact of Insects on Human Health.” Chemical Specialties

Manufacturers Association, 1998. (Dangerous Pests, 1998).

“An Introduction to Insecticides.” National IPM Network, University of Minnesota. Internet

Web Site http://ipmworld.umn.edu. (IPM, 1999).

Telephone Conference between Staff and Clorox, June 2, 1999. (Clorox, 1999).

Meeting with S.C. Johnson, Scotts Company, MGK, CSMA and Staff, July 14, 1999. 

(SCJ, 1999).

I. Furniture Maintenance Products (aerosol)

Product Category Description:

Furniture maintenance products are designed and labeled for the purpose of polishing,

protecting or enhancing finished wood surfaces other than floors. Products in this category are

applied to wood furniture, and then wiped off with a soft, clean cloth (ARB, 1990). The furniture

maintenance product beautifies and enhances natural woodgrain, leaving a clear and shiny surface. 

The shine is due to the wax in the products (ARB, 1990). Furniture maintenance products leave a

protective coating or film on wood surfaces that is designed to be periodically replenished. 

Furniture maintenance products do not include dusting aids, which are regulated as a

separate category (ARB, 1991). Furniture maintenance products also do not include products

designed solely for the purpose of cleaning, and products designed to leave a permanent finish

such as stains, sanding sealers and lacquers. However, products designed to both clean and polish

are included in this category.

Furniture maintenance products are sold in a variety of forms including aerosol, liquid, gel,

and pumps. Furniture maintenance products were first regulated under “Phase I” of the consumer

products regulation adopted on October 11, 1990. The current limit for aerosol products is 25

percent by weight, effective January 1, 1994. A further description of these products is included

in the staff report for that regulation (ARB, 1990). Aerosol forms comprise about 70 percent of

the category sales, by weight (Survey, 1998). Because aerosol forms contribute over 90 percent

of the VOC emissions and technology exists to reduce these emissions, we are proposing to lower

the VOC limit for aerosol furniture maintenance products.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 124

Table VI-17 below summarizes the sales and emissions from aerosol furniture maintenance

products based on the results of the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey

(Survey, 1998). VOC emissions from aerosol furniture maintenance products are approximately

4,000 pounds per day in California.

Table VI-17

Furniture Maintenance Products*

Product Form Products (lbs/day) (lbs/day)**

Number of Category Sales Emissions

Adjusted VOC

Aerosol 52 20,000 4,000

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:

Furniture maintenance products are used by both household and institutional customers. 

These products are designed to be used as part of a regimen of routine care for wood furniture,

with regular intervals of application (Gold, 1999). 

Most aerosol furniture maintenance products, including waxes and polishes, are emulsions.

These products are generally applied directly to wood furniture, or to a cleaning cloth, if the

wood is next to fabric or other non-wood surfaces. Next, the product is rubbed into or wiped off

the wood surface. During the wiping process, the water phase is absorbed by the cloth. This

leaves only the solvent/wax/polish phase on the wood surface. As the solvent evaporates, a

protective coating is left on the surface. (Reckitt & Colman, 1999)

Furniture waxes and polishes may also be applied to paneling, wood trim, and cabinetry. 

Most products are designed to leave a shiny, protective coating on the treated wood. Many

products are designed to perform more than one function. These products typically both clean

and protect wood furniture. 

Furniture waxes and polishes are usually sold to the consumer market through

supermarkets, grocery stores, discount outlets and marts. Products sold to businesses are

supplied through a variety of ways including direct sales, catalogs, and wholesale to cleaning and

janitorial services.

Product Formulation:

Aerosol furniture maintenance products are generally formulated as emulsions. The

solvent phase contains liquified propellants such as propane, butane and isobutanes, which “act”
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 125

as co-solvents (Reckitt & Colman, 1999), as well as other solvents such as mineral spirits, 

(i.e. naphtha, stoddard). The largest VOC component of furniture maintenance products is the

hydrocarbon propellant, typically at 10 to 12 percent by weight. Solvent/water emulsion products

also contain oils, waxes and silicones in their solvent phase (ARB, 1990) The other 

solvents keep the wax in solution. The other phase consists primarily of water. Some solids, such

as colorants, may also exist in the water phase.

Some products are designed to perform more than one function. Many products both

“clean” and protect wood furniture. To clean, these products generally rely on solvents to

dissolve old wax or polish layers. Dissolving previous wax helps to minimize waxy buildup. 

Some products also contain silicones, which protect wood against water damage. Fragrance is

also an ingredient found in many furniture maintenance products, which may add slightly to the

overall VOC content of the product. 

A small number of furniture maintenance products do not contain any water, and use

carbon dioxide as a propellant (1998, Survey). The average VOC content for products using

carbon dioxide as a propellant is under the current 25 percent VOC limit (1998, Survey). These

products contain a high percentage of oils. These oils penetrate into the wood and help

moisturize, condition and protect the wood. These products are not recommended for use on

wood coated by polyurethane or other sealant because these products are designed to be absorbed

into the wood (Gold, 1999). Products that do not contain water can use alternative propellants

such as carbon dioxide (typically 2 to 3 percent carbon dioxide). 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

There are reformulation options available that make reductions in VOC content technically

and commercially feasible. Therefore, we are proposing a 17 percent VOC limit for furniture

maintenance products, effective December 31, 2004. As shown in Table VI-18 below, there are

already 19 products that comply with the proposed limit of 17 percent. Reformulation options

include the use of currently available propellants that do not contribute to the VOC content of the

products. Propellants such as HFC-152a could be blended with a hydrocarbon propellent which

would reduce the VOC content. Also, LVP-VOC solvents are available that can partially replace

current VOC solvents. In fact, most products are using LVP-VOC solvents and water to meet

the current 25 percent VOC limit. The availability of non-VOC propellants and solvents make

reformulation options available to these products. It is expected that most products may

reformulate to meet the proposed limit by using a blend of HFC-152a with present hydrocarbon

propellants, and increasing the amount of LVP-VOC solvents.

Table VI-18

Furniture Maintenance Products Proposal*
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 126

Product Form (wt. %) Products (%) (lbs/day)**

Proposed Complying Emission

VOC Limit Complying Market Share Reductions

Adjusted

Aerosol 17 19 13 700

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Patents

A search of the United States Patent Office’s (USPTO) database revealed some patents

which further suggest that the proposed limit can be met using current technology.

U.S. Patent 5,681,377, “Wax-free furniture polish with silicone components,” issued to Lohr,

Robert H and Uebe, Phillip J., filed December 20, 1995.

This patent presents a formulation for a wax-free silicone containing furniture polish

prepared by using three different strategies: 1) use of a low viscosity silicone fluid and a silicone

gum; 2) use of a low viscosity silicone fluid and a polydiorganosiloxane; and 3) use of a low

viscosity silicone fluid, a silicone gum, and a polydiorganosiloxane together with water and one or

more suitable surfactants. A sample complying aerosol furniture polish formulation encompassed

by the patent is as follows:

Ingredient Percent

Hydrocarbon propellant 10.0

Hydrocarbon Solvent 6.3

Surfactants 0.5

Silicones 7.2

Fragrances 0.3

Preservatives 0.4

Water 75.3

Total VOCs 16.3

The sample formulation shown above adds a hydrocarbon propellant to an oil and water

furniture polish mixture based on the first formulation strategy described above. The addition of

propellant is explained in the patent and is optional. The patent describes suitable propellants

including hydrocarbon propellants, compressed gases, dimethyl ether and non-ozone depleting

hydrofluorocarbon propellants. This suggests that HFC-152a is a viable reformulation option for

furniture wax and polish. This formula is described as being very easy to use while providing a

very high gloss level and low smear levels.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 127

U.S. Patent 4,732,612, “Polish emulsion compositions,” Steer, Frank J. and Ferguson, John A.,

The Drackett Company, filed September 2, 1983.

This patent describes a composition characterized by an internal aqueous phase and an

external oil phase. The first claim of the patent, part (e), explains that the formulation can contain

up to about 90 percent water. Adding a propellant to this mixture, as explained in the patent,

could result in the following formulation:

 82.8 percent water (calculated by simple addition of 8 percent hydrocarbon propellant to

 a 90 percent water formulation as described in the patent)

 8.0 percent hydrocarbon Propellant (average of current propellant use in furniture polish)

 9.2 percent other VOC compounds (assuming all ingredients excluding water are VOCs)

 17.2 percent total VOC’s

This total VOC content (17.2 percent) is within about one percent of the proposed 17 percent

limit, and is calculated as worst case because not all ingredients (excluding water) are VOCs in

the patented formulation. Non-VOC ingredients described in the patent include polysiloxanes and

solids such as wax.

It should be noted that neither of the patents described here rely on the use of a non-VOC

propellant to produce low VOC furniture maintenance products. However, the patents do not

preclude the use of non-VOC propellants such as HFC-152a. In fact, as indicated in an additional

patent, the weight percent or concentration of the propellant is not critical in the formulation, and

can vary widely (SCJ, 1990). Additionally, no patents for furniture polish or waxes were found

that described propellants as part of the patented formulation. If a propellant was mentioned at

all, it was always described as optional, and not an integral, or critical ingredient in these

formulations. This would seem to suggest that switching between a present hydrocarbon

propellant to an HFC-152a/hydrocarbon blend propellant would not be problematic for current

furniture wax or polish formulations.

Issue:

1. Issue: HFC-152a may be used to reduce hydrocarbon propellants in furniture maintenance

products, but is more costly than hydrocarbon propellants. 

Response: To meet the proposed limits manufacturers need not completely replace

hydrocarbon propellants. This should minimize cost. HFC-152a can be used in a blend with

hydrocarbon propellants to reduce the cost.

2. Issue: LVP-VOC solvents can cause polishes and waxes to leave a cloudy appearance after

application to a wood surface.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 128

Response: There are currently products available at about 20 percent VOC by weight which

do not leave a cloudy residue according to the label. These products may be able to substitute 

3 percent of their current hydrocarbon propellants for a non-VOC propellant such as HFC-152a.

Products, therefore, could meet the proposed VOC limit without additional LVP-VOC solvents.

Also, there may be some LVP-VOC solvents that do not contribute to the “cloudy” residue problem.

3. Issue: The solubility of HFC-152a is much different than the current hydrocarbon propellants

and will not be suitable as a substitute because of current formulation solvent needs.

Response: Although HFC-152a does have a much lower solubility than the current

hydrocarbon propellants, the proposed standard will not require a complete switch from hydrocarbon

propellants to HFC-152a. A blend of current hydrocarbon propellant with HFC-152a is the most

likely reformulation path, therefore not all the current solubility properties will be lost. Additionally,

surfactants may be added to stabilize the reformulated emulsion (DuPont, 1999). Also, as stated

previously, the weight percent or concentration of the propellant is not critical in the formulation, and

can vary widely (SCJ, 1990), according to some patents.

4. Issue: Reformulating with a new propellant such as HFC-152a will create can corrosion

problems for furniture maintenance products.

Response: Corrosion issues are mainly a result of the presence of water in furniture

maintenance products. Almost all of currently available furniture maintenance products contain water

and have already had to address corrosion problems. Changing the propellant to a hydrocarbon and

HFC-152a blend should not effect these issues in any major way. Most likely, whatever scheme

currently employed to resolve corrosion concerns will remain appropriate with use of the new

propellant blend (DuPont, 1999).

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document. Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990)

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - 

Phase II. October, 1991. (ARB, 1991)

Air Resources Board. 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. February 28, 1998.

(Survey, 1998)

DuPont. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. August 10, 1999. (DuPont, 1999).

Reckitt & Colman. “Presentation to Air Resources Board, May 1999.” (Reckitt & Colman, 1999)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 129

Scotts Liquid Gold. Internet Site. “Scotts Liquid Gold for the Love of Wood.” http://www.scottsliquid-gold.com. (Gold, 1999)

U.S. Patent 5,681,377, “Wax-free furniture polish with silicone components”, issued to Lohr, Robert

H and Uebe, Phillip J., filed December 20, 1995.

U.S. Patent 4,732,612, “Polish emulsion compositions”, Steer, Frank J. and Ferguson, John A., The

Drackett Company, filed September 2, 1983.

U.S. Patent 5,112,394, “Furniture polish concentrate and formulations”, Miller, Eric J., S.C. Johnson

& Sons, Inc, filed August 28, 1990. (SCJ, 1990)

J. General Purpose Cleaners (Non-aerosol)

Product Category Description:

General purpose cleaners are products designed for general all-purpose cleaning. These

cleaners include products used for general floor cleaning, kitchen or counter-top cleaning, and

products designed to be used on a variety of hard surfaces such as walls. However, the general

purpose cleaner category does not include cleaning products designed to cleanse specific

substrates in certain situations. For example, metal surface only cleaners are not included in this

category. Also excluded from the category are glass cleaners and bathroom and tile cleaners

which are regulated separately. 

General Purpose Cleaners were initially regulated under the “Phase I” consumer products

regulation adopted in 1990 (ARB 1990a). The current limit for general purpose cleaners is 

10 percent effective January 1, 1994. Based on the Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Consumer and

Commercial Products Survey results, the number of products in this category has increased by

approximately 80 percent since first regulated (ARB, 1990b; 1998). Survey results and literature

data indicate that general purpose cleaners, general purpose degreasers, and glass cleaners are

formulated and used similarly (ARB, 1998; Johnsen, 1997). Therefore, we are proposing

identical VOC limits for these categories to reflect their similarities.

Table VI-19 below summarizes the Consumer and Commercial Products Survey 

(ARB, 1998) results for the general purpose cleaner category. As shown in Table VI-19,

products are sold in both aerosol and non-aerosol forms. The non-aerosol products can be further

divided into liquid, pump spray, gel or paste, powder, and towelettes. Depending on their

intended use, dilution may or may not be required. In this regulatory effort, we are proposing to

regulate only non-aerosol products because they constitute most of the emissions. 

Table VI-19

General Purpose Cleaners*
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 130

Product Form Products (lbs/day) (lbs/day)**

Number of Category Sales Emissions

Adjusted VOC

Aerosol 39 2,982 309

Concentrated 384 10,516

(Non-aerosol)

133,630,779 ***

Ready-to-Use 182 251,292 7,011

(Non-aerosol)

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 1998).

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

*** Adjusted for dilution.

Product Use and Marketing:

General purpose cleaners are used by household and institutional customers for general

all-purpose cleaning and for removing soils, stains, or spots from different hard surfaces. In

addition to cleaning benefits, some products have a surface conditioning function (e.g. abrasive

cleaners), while others make disinfecting claims (Colwell, 1997). For cleaning, products are

applied either directly to the surface or indirectly with a mop or sponge to cover large areas; some

scrubbing is usually required but rinsing may or may not be necessary after the product is used

(ARB, 1990b).

General purpose cleaners are sold in a variety of product forms including aerosol,

ready-to-use liquid; pump spray; powder; paste or gel, and towelettes; and concentrated liquids

and powders which require dilution before use (Hamilton and Gindling, 1999). Some products

are marketed under the name of a specific active ingredient in their formulations such as citrus

cleaner, pine cleaner, bleach cleaner, and ammoniated cleaner. Because of their degreasing and

glass cleaning abilities, some of the products are also marketed as “general purpose

cleaner-degreaser” or “glass and surface cleaners.” General purpose cleaners are available from

grocery stores and discount stores etc. and are sold to household consumers, janitors, restaurants,

and other commercial or institutional establishments for general cleaning and, to a certain extent

for disinfecting duties. Compared to the ready-to-use products, concentrated products are more

commonly used for industrial and institutional applications. 

Product Formulation:

General purpose cleaners are primarily water-based products designed to clean soils from

different surfaces. Typical ingredients used in these products are: propellents (aerosol-form

only), solvents, surfactants, builders, antimicrobials, hydrotropes, bleaches, thickeners, fragrance,

and particles (powder-form products only) (ARB, 1990b; Dow; Hamilton and Gindling, 1999). 

Detailed descriptions of each ingredient’s function are given below.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 131

For aerosol-form products, liquified hydrocarbon propellents such as propane and

isobutane are used to provide pressure to force the cleaning solution out of the container. These

propellents, together with other ingredients (e.g. surface active agents and solvents) in the

formulation, are designed to control how the product is discharged (for example, foam) 

(Sanders, 1987). General purpose cleaners may also include corrosion inhibitors for retarding 

corrosion-causing electrochemical reactions and fragrance to provide a fresh and pleasant smell to

these products (Rocafort, 1995; Shaw, 1998). The sales weighted average VOC content of

aerosol products is about nine percent by weight (ARB, 1998).

In general purpose cleaners, solvents such as glycol ethers and alcohols provide efficient

active solvency power for most oils, greases, and dirts. This solvency aids in the dissolution

mechanism of soil removal. Studies have shown that aqueous formulations containing glycol

ethers are more effective than formulations containing only traditional surface active agents

(surfactants) for removing soils (Dow). Hence, in addition to surfactants, some products are

formulated with glycol ethers. The function of the glycol ether (and surfactant) in a general

purpose cleaner is to reduce the surface tension of water and /or to reduce the interfacial tension

between two liquids, or between a solid and liquid. In fact, experimental results indicate that

approximately a 40 percent reduction in water’s surface tension can be achieved through use

of 3 percent of 2-butoxyethanol (Dow). Through these processes, soil is held in suspension and

prevented from re-depositing on the surface. In addition to glycol ethers, ethanolamines and

builders can prevent the redeposition effect (Aboul-Kassim and Simoneit, 1993; Union Carbide). 

Depending on the performance requirement, solvents such as 2-butoxyethanol can also be used to

increase the evaporation rate and hence, the dry-time of the product (Rocklin, 1986; Dow;

Hamilton and Gindling, 1999). 

As mentioned above, surfactants are included in general purpose cleaner formulations to

modify the solution’s surface tension characteristics, and allow the active ingredient to spread

uniformly over a surface. For aqueous-based general purpose cleaners, the surfactants used have

a water soluble group (hydrophilic) which is either electrically neutral (i.e. nonionic) or negatively

charged (anionic). The hydrophilic group, together with the non-polar hydrophobic (water

insoluble) group allows the surfactant molecule to accumulate at the solid/water or 

air-water interface. This process allows a new interfacial layer with a lower surface tension to be

formed which improves the wetting property of the cleaning solution. 

Hydrotropes and builders may also be included in the cleaner’s formulation. Hydrotopes 

increase the solubility of organic compounds, such as surfactants, in general purpose cleaners. 

The most commonly used hydrotropes are alkyl aryl sulfonates (Karsa, 1987; Aboul-Kassim and

Simoneit, 1993). A builder is a substance that increases the effectiveness of a surfactant by

functioning as a sequestering agent. Builders bind hard water ions such as calcium or magnesium

to form large water-soluble ions. In addition to counteracting the effect of water hardness,

builders are also used to control the pH for effective dirt removal. Common examples of builders

include inorganic phosphates, carbonates, and organic chelators such as citrates (Aboul-Kassim
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 132

and Simoneit, 1993). 

Because of consumers’ increasing concern about germs spreading from contaminated

household surfaces and the objectionable odor caused by bacteria or fungi, some general purpose

cleaners also include antimicrobial compounds in the formulation (Colwell, 1997; Roth, 1997;

Branna, 1997). In these products, quaternary ammonium compounds (e.g. alkyl dimethyl benzyl

ammonium chlorides) are added. For effective disinfecting, only a fraction of one percent of these

compounds is required. For some products, antimicrobial properties are also achieved as a “sideeffect” of other ingredients such as cationic and anionic surfactants, hypochlorite, or oxygenated

bleach in the formulation (Kore and Kiesche-Nesselrodt, 1990; Whalley, 1996). General purpose

cleaners that make germ-killing claims are registered with the U.S. EPA under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). They must also register with the California

Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) prior to being marketed in the State of California. 

Despite their disinfecting power, general purpose cleaners are excluded from the disinfectant

definition (Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Article 2, Consumer Products, section

94508) and, hence, are not subject to the provision of Health and Safety Code 

section 41712 (j). 

Data from the ARB 1997 consumer products survey indicate that liquid-form general

purpose cleaners can be divided into VOC-containing and “non-VOC” containing formulations. 

The VOC-containing formulations rely mainly on glycol ethers, alcohol and/or terpenes in the

products for cleaning. Non-VOC based formulations, which contain only a small amount of

VOC, employ LVP-VOC ingredients and/or inorganics to perform the cleaning function. Some

general purpose cleaners are also formulated with abrasives to smooth, scour, rub, and clean

surfaces by mechanical action. Examples of the abrasive powders include silica with different

particle sizes (Flick, 1989). 

The sales weighted average VOC content of the ready-to-use and concentrated products is

2.3 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

In this regulatory effort, new VOC limits are proposed only for non-aerosol forms of

general purpose cleaners. The proposed VOC limits for ready-to-use and concentrated general

purpose cleaners are 3 and 1 percent VOC by weight, respectively. The lower VOC limit

proposed for concentrated products is consistent with the lower average VOC content in these

products. The proposed limits would be effective December 31, 2004. However, for products

that make disinfecting claims, an additional year is allowed to provide time for registration under

FIFRA. 

According to the ARB 1997 consumer products survey, over 550 non-aerosol form

products were sold in California (ARB, 1998). Among these products, 121 ready-to-use products

and 329 concentrated products already comply with the proposed limits, representing complying
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 133

market shares of 61 and 99 percent, respectively. 

. 

The VOC ingredients of general purpose cleaners are mainly solvents such as glycol ethers

and alcohols. As mentioned previously, our 1997 consumer product survey shows that large

number of complying products exist in the market, and there is no indication that complying

products rely mainly on patented technology. These observations show that technologies needed

to meet the proposed VOC limits for general purpose cleaners are readily available. In addition,

new materials and different reformulation options are currently available for manufacturers to

comply with the consumer products regulation. For example, propylene-oxide based glycol ethers

(i.e. P-series glycol ethers) such as 1-butoxy-2-propanol has a similar evaporation rate to the

widely used 2-butoxyethanol (ethylene-oxide based glycol ether; E-series glycol ethers) but has a

higher efficiency in reducing the surface tension of water. Therefore, 1-butoxy-2-propanol could

be used in a lower amount for reducing the overall solvent level in the cleaning formulations

(Bartos, 1996). If fast drying is not critical to the product performance, a variety of glycol ethers,

which qualify as low vapor pressure (LVP)-VOCs are available for reducing the VOC content of

cleaners. In fact, preliminary studies have shown that cleaners using P-series glycol ethers

perform similarly or even better than several leading commercial hard surface cleaners (Dow). 

With respect to other reformulation options, Reynold (1991) reported that LVP-VOC

solvents such as mono-ester (Exxate) and isoparaffin (Isopar) synthetic solvents are as effective as

1,1,1-trichloroethane in removing different types of greasy soils. Because of its surface active

property, Exxate solvent could potentially be used for replacing glycol ethers as a coupling

solvent in aqueous cleaners. For products requiring a shorter dry-time, reformulation strategies

using LVP-VOC solvents have been developed (Schrenier, 1994). 

Table VI-20

General Purpose Cleaners Proposal*

Product Form (wt. %) Products (%) (lbs./day)**

Proposed Complying Adjusted Emission

VOC Limit Complying Market Share Reductions

Concentrated 1 329 >99 904

(Non-aerosol)

Ready-to-Use 3 121 61 2315

(Non-aerosol)

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Issues:

1. Issue: Industry has suggested that FIFRA registered general purpose cleaners require a

higher VOC content than the non-FIFRA registered general purpose cleaners. They also
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 134

indicated that to allow for FIFRA registration more time is needed to comply with the proposed

VOC limit.

Response: Except for pine oil, isopropanol, and ethanol, the antimicrobial active

ingredients used in general purpose cleaners are not VOCs. According to the ARB 1997

consumer products survey, FIFRA-registered products containing similar non-VOC antimicrobial

ingredients (dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides) have overall VOC contents ranging from 10

percent to less than 1 percent by weight. This observation suggests that VOC content of the

cleaners plays only a minor disinfecting role, if any. In addition, we are not aware of any data that

suggests that the percentage of “active” VOC (for example, ethanol) contained in general purpose

cleaners (approximately 1 percent, on average, for ready-to-use products and less than 1 percent

for concentrated products) is effective for killing germs. Instead, these VOCs more likely serve as

a mean to provide a fresh and pleasant smell (e.g. pine oil) or as a solvent, which provides the

cleaning power needed and/or facilitates the contact between the antimicrobial agents and the

surface(s).

 

To provide enough time for industry to reformulate their products, we are proposing a

December 31, 2004, effective date. For consumer products that must register under FIFRA, the

regulation allows an extra year to comply with specific VOC limits (see section 94509(d)). This

additional year should allow sufficient time for manufacturers to complete the FIFRA registration

process. 

2. Issue: Industry has suggested that the complying market share for general purpose

cleaners is misleading because “specialty products” and powder product forms with little or no

VOC content are included in the calculation. They suggest that if these products were not

included in the calculation, the data would show that the proposed limit is not feasible for 

ready-to-use pump products.

Response: Based on the list of products received from industry, we excluded “specialty

products” from the database and recalculated the complying market share. The complying market

share for the ready-to-use general purpose cleaners changed from 61 percent to 

50 percent. However, no change in complying market share was found for the concentrated

products. When both “specialty products” and powders were removed, the complying market

share was lowered to 33 percent. Furthermore, for pump products only, the data indicate a 

14 percent complying marketshare. These data still suggest that the proposed 3 percent limit is

technologically feasible.

3. Issue: Industry has indicated that some general purpose cleaners, reported in the 

1997 Survey as dilutable, are actually “super concentrates” that are designed to be diluted and

used as ready-to-use products. Because of this they have requested that a provision be added to

the regulation to allow these “super concentrates” to be defined as ready-to-use products and be

subject to the proposed ready-to-use VOC limit. They indicated that these products were a niche

market with limited sales, such that there would be a minimal impact on emission reductions if this
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 135

provision was included in the regulation.

Response: ARB staff evaluated this request based on information supplied by industry

which indicated that “super concentrates” could be defined as dilutable products which had

minimum dilution ratios of one-to-five or less. Staff determined that a number of products would

potentially qualify as “super concentrates” based on this criterion. The data also show that many

of these “super concentrates” are able to comply with the proposed VOC limit of one percent for

dilutable general purpose cleaners. Because the proposed VOC limit appears to be

technologically feasible, ARB staff determined the provision to be unnecessary. 

In those instances where there is a need for a concentrated product for special applications, such

as hard-to-removes soils, section 94509 of the regulation allows products to be used in their

concentrated form. However, the ARB staff acknowledges that, in some instances, manufacturers

may need to reformulate their “super concentrated” products to a ready-to-use product

formulation and no longer sell them as dilutables.

REFERENCES

Aboul-Kassim T.A. and Blend R.T. Simoneit (1993). Detergents: A review of the nature,

chemistry, and behavior in the aquatic environment. Part 1. Chemical composition and analytical

techniques. Critical Reviews in Environmental Sciences and technology, 23: 325-376.

 (Aboul-Kassim and Simoneit 1993)

Air Resources Board. Staff Report, Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions from Consumer Products. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990a)

Air Resources Board. Technical Support Document, Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990b)

Air Resources Board. 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. February 28, 1998.

(ARB, 1998) 

Bartos, L. “P-series glycol ethers.” Happi, p.64. December 1996. (Bartos)

Branna, T. “Disinfectants have their day,” Happi, p.85, April 1997. (Branna)

Colwell, S.M. “Disinfectants: Lethal weapons.” Soap, Cosmetics, Chemical Specialities, p.54,

May 1997. (Colwell)

Dow Chemical Inc. Internet site. “Oxysolvents.” http://www.dow.com/oxysolvent. htm. (Dow).

Flick, E.W. (1989) Advanced cleaning product formulations: Household, Industrial, and

Automotives. Noyes Publication, New Jersey, USA. (Flick)

Hamilton, R and Gindling, M. “General Purpose Cleaners”. Presentation at the Consumer
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 136

Product Workship, Sacramento, CA, May 17 1999. (Hamilton and Gindling).

Johnsen, M.A. “The venerable aerosol window cleaner”. Spray Technology and Market, p.26,

January 1997. (Johnsen)

Karsa, D.R. (1987) “Industrial applications of surfactants - an overview.” In : Industrial

Applicaitons of Surfactants: The Proceedings of a Symposium organized by the North West

Region of the Industrial Division of the Royal Society of Chemistry. University of Salford, 15th17th Apirl, 1986. Karas D.R. (Ed), Royal Society of Chemistry, London. (Karsa)

Kore, A.M. and Kiesche-Nesselrodt, A. (1990) Toxicology of houshold cleaning products and

disinfectants. Toixicology of Selected Pesticides, Drugs, and Chemicals, 20, 525. (Kore and

Kiesche-Nesselrodt) 

Reynolds, J.M. Cost effective replcaements for chlorinated solvents and glycol ethers. Spray

Technology & Marketing, p.32, July, 1991. (Reynolds)

Rocafort, C.M. Preventing corrosion in aqueous based aerosol. Spray technology and Marketing,

p.26, December 1995. (Rocafort)

Rocklin, A.L. (1986) “The role of azeotropy in speeding up water/solvent evaporation in humid

air.” Journal of Coating Technology, 58, 61-70. (Rocklin)

Roth, G.Y. “Household cleaner market goes through rebuilding stage.”, Happi, p.55, 

November 1997. (Roth)

Sanders, P.A. (1987) Handbook of aerosol technology. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.

(Sanders)

Schreiner, J.L. “LVP solvents help meet VOC regulations for consumer products”. Spray

Technology & Marketing, p.16, January, 1994. (Schreiner)

Shaw, A. “Fragrancing for household cleaners: giving products the edge”. Soap, Cosmetics,

Chemical Specialties, June 1998. (Shaw)

Union Carbide. Product literature. “Ethanolamines” (publication no. UC-1259 1/98-3.5M)

(Union Carbide)

Whalley, G.R. “Household bleach.” Happi, November, 61 1996. (Whalley)

K. General Purpose Degreasers

Product Category Description:
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 137

In the current Consumer Products Regulation, general purpose degreasers are defined as

products designed to remove grease, grime, oil or other oil-based contaminants from a variety of

substrates. At present, general purpose degreaser does not include engine degreaser, general

purpose cleaner, metallic parts cleaner, adhesive remover, electronic cleaner, or metal

polish/cleanser. 

General purpose degreasers were regulated under the consumer products regulation

(“Mid-term Measures”) adopted in May 1998 (ARB, 1997b). The current volatile organic

compound (VOC) limit for the aerosol forms of general purpose degreasers is 50 percent by

weight effective January 1, 2002. The current VOC limit for non-aerosol forms of general

purpose degreasers is 10 percent by weight effective January 1, 2001. Descriptions of product

use and marketing and product formulations have been described in the technical support

document “Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer

Products Regulation” (ARB, 1997a) and, hence, are not be included in this report. The present

regulatory effort is to propose an amendment to the general purpose degreaser definition to

include metallic parts cleaners. Additionally, we are proposing to lower the VOC content limit for

non-aerosol general purpose degreasers. This change is being proposed to provide for

consistency with the VOC limit proposed for general purpose cleaners. As indicated in the 1997

survey results and available literature, these products have similar formulations and uses

(ARB, 1998; Johnsen). 

We are proposing to modify the definition for “general purpose degreaser” to include

products that are designed to clean miscellaneous metallic parts. These products are currently

sold and labeled as “solvent parts cleaner” or “metallic parts cleaner,” and have not been subject

to the Consumer Products Regulation. However, these products have functions similar to general

purpose degreasers in that they are designed to remove or dissolve grease, dirt, grime, and other

contaminants (MEMA). Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to include solvent parts cleaners

and metallic parts cleaners in the general purpose degreaser category. This amendment would

provide consistency in the regulation. 

The proposed amendment to the general purpose degreaser definition also would exclude

products that are used exclusively in solvent cleaning tanks and related equipment. Most of the

non-aerosol metallic parts cleaners and solvent parts cleaners are used in such settings, and are,

thus, not subject to the VOC content limits for non-aerosol general purpose degreasers. 

Emissions from these products are regulated by the local air districts because they are included in

the business’ “permit to operate.” For the same reason, products that are (1) sold exclusively to

establishments which manufacture or construct goods or commodities and (2) labeled “not for

retail sale” are proposed for exclusion from the “general purpose degreaser” definition. 

Table VI-21 below summarizes the ARB 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products

Survey (survey) results for the general purpose degreaser category (ARB, 1998). Although not

shown below in Table VI-21, non-aerosol products can be further divided into liquid, pump

sprays, and powders. Depending on their applications, dilution may or may not be needed before
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 138

use. Note that the aerosol category includes only metallic parts cleaners and solvent parts

cleaners. In the current Consumer Products Regulation, metallic parts cleaner is defined as an

organic liquid that is designed to dissolve grease, dirt, or other contaminants solely from

miscellaneous metallic parts. 

It is reasonable to include the metallic parts cleaners into the definition of general purpose

degreaser because the general purpose degreasers are designed primarily to remove grease and

other contaminants from substrates. Considering the variety of formulations of general purpose

degreasers to remove grease and other contaminants from many different substrates, overlap of

the formulations for metallic parts cleaner is inherent (MEMA). Thus, we are proposing to amend

the definition of general purpose degreaser to include metallic parts cleaner. 

Table VI-21

General Purpose Degreasers *

Product Form Products (lbs/day) (lbs/day)**

Number of Category Sales Adjusted VOC Emissions

Aerosol 33 (12)*** 2,080 (1494)*** 595 (1453)***

Dilutable 199 2,403

(Non-aerosol)

411,193 ****

Ready-to-Use 95 7,718 2,094

(Non-aerosol)

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

*** Number of general purpose degreasers already regulated (Number for metallic parts

cleaner to be added to category).

**** Number adjusted for dilution.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The proposed VOC limits for ready-to-use and dilutable non-aerosol general purpose

degreasers are 3 and 1 percent VOC by weight, respectively. The lower VOC limit for

concentrated products is proposed because of the lower average VOC content once they are

diluted. The proposed limits would be effective in December 31, 2004. 

According to the ARB 1997 survey, over 290 non-aerosol products were sold in

California (ARB, 1998). Among these products, 167 have a VOC content at or below the

proposed limit. The complying marketshares for ready-to-use and dilutables are 28 percent and

83 percent, respectively. 

Because of the similarity in their formulations, the reformulation strategies discussed in

Section J for General Purpose Cleaners are applicable to the general purpose degreaser
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 139

non-aerosol forms as well. Hence, this discussion is not included in this part of the staff report. 

General purpose cleaners and general purpose degreasers represent product continuum designed

to remove soil with different degree of toughness. Accordingly, the overlap in formulations as

well as the VOC contents between the general purpose degreasers and general purpose cleaners

are consistent with the similar functions of these products. 

With the proposed inclusion of metallic parts cleaner products into the general purpose

degreaser definition, aerosol metallic parts cleaner would be subject to the 50 percent-by-weight

VOC limit, effective January 1, 2002. The current sales-weighted-average (SWA) VOC content

of metallic parts cleaner is 97 percent. VOC emissions from these products are 0.73 tons per day. 

With the existing 50 percent VOC limit, emission reductions would be 0.36 tons per day. 

Compliance with the 50 percent limit for the aerosol metallic parts cleaners can be

achieved by reformulating with exempt VOCs and/or using the advanced surfactant technology

already being used in currently complying metallic parts cleaners and general purpose degreasers. 

Exempt VOCs that may be used in aerosol metallic parts cleaners include carbon dioxide as

propellant, acetone, parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF) (OxyChem), LVP-VOCs, or methyl

acetate. While there are also products that use chlorinated solvents to comply with the limit,

others have relied on aqueous cleaners with advanced surfactant technology (Quitmeyer). In these

products, efficient surfactants are used to remove grease and grime in water-based formulations. 

The compound in the cleaner acts by having a greater attraction to the metallic surface such that it

undercuts the attaching foreign particle. The foreign particle is then released from the metallic

surface. An example of a mild alkaline surfactant is ethanolamine. Ethanolamines are also

corrosion inhibitors and soil anti-redeposition agents (Union Carbide Corporation). Also, recent

developments in pH-neutral surfactant technology may prove that pH-neutral surfactant solutions

are more advantageous over solvent or alkaline surfactant solutions for certain applications

(Forbes and Forbes). 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 140

Table VI-22

General Purpose Degreasers Proposal*

Product VOC Limit Complying Market Share Reductions

Form (wt. %) Products (%) (lbs./day)**

Proposed Complying Adjusted Emission

Aerosol 50*** 2*** 1.49*** 720***

Dilutable 1 132 83.0 903.9

Ready-to-Use 3 35 28.2 330.7

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

*** Numbers reflect only the metallic/solvent parts cleaners. 

Issues:

1. Issues: Industry has suggested that general purpose degreasers require a higher VOC

content than general purpose cleaners to effectively remove greasy soils.

Response: The ARB staff agrees that the solvent content in general purpose degreasers

and general purpose cleaners may affect their cleaning power. If a higher VOC content is needed

for general purpose degreasers, as discussed in Section J for General Purpose Cleaners, a variety

of LVP-VOC solvents are available for providing the solvency needed. 

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California

Consumer Products Regulation. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997a)

Air Resources Board. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of

Comments and Agency Responses - Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Amendments to the

California Consumer Products Regulation -- Mid-term Measures, Agenda Item No: 97-6-4. 

July 24, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)

Air Resources Board. 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. February 28, 1998. 

(ARB, 1998)

Forbes, L. and Forbes, P. Parts Cleaning. “Tension-Reducing Chemistry.” 

November/December, 1997. (Forbes and Forbes)

Johnsen, M.A. “The venerable aerosol window cleaner.” Spray Technology and Marketing.

Page 26. January, 1997. (Johnsen)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 141

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association. Meeting with ARB Staff on May 19, 1999. 

(MEMA)

Occidental Chemical Corporation. Internet site. “Oxsol 100.” 

Http://www.oxychem.com/html/oxsol_100_overview.html. 1999. (OxyChem)

Quitmeyer, J. Journal of the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. “New

Technology Alkaline Cleaners Replace Chlorinated Solvent Degreasers.” March, 1991. 

(Quitmeyer)

Union Carbide. Ethanolamines. Pp. 4-5. 1998. (Union Carbide)

L. Glass Cleaners (non-aerosol)

Product Category Description:

Glass cleaners are specialty cleaning products designed primarily for cleaning surfaces

made of glass such as windows, mirrors, glass tabletops, and computer screens. However, the

glass cleaner category does not include products designed solely for the purpose of cleaning

optical materials used in eyeglasses, photographic equipment, scientific equipment and

photocopying machines. Products marketed as “Glass and surface cleaner” are also not included

in this category. Glass cleaners come in a variety of forms including liquids, solids, aerosols, and

concentrated liquid products which require dilution prior to use. 

Glass cleaners were first regulated under the “Phase I” consumer products regulation

adopted in October of 1990; additional information regarding the glass cleaner category can be

found in the Phase I Technical Support Document (ARB, 1990c). Table VI-23 below

summarizes our Air Resources Board (ARB) 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey

(1997 Survey) results for the glass cleaner category. In this regulatory effort, we are proposing

further regulation of non-aerosol products which represent 98 percent of the glass cleaners sold in

California. The current volatile organic compound (VOC) limit for non-aerosol glass cleaners is

six percent by weight effective January 1, 1996.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 142

Table VI-23

Glass Cleaners (non-aerosol)*

Product Form Products (lbs/day) (lbs/day)**

Number of Category Sales Emissions

Adjusted VOC

Ready to Use (RTU) 107 91,510 4,540

Concentrates 73 89,360 2,420

Total 180 180,870 6,960

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:

The glass cleaner category consists of cleaning products that are labeled exclusively for

use on glass surfaces. In addition to window cleaning, these cleaners are used to remove soils

from glass furniture, fixtures, mirrors, or special surfaces such as stained glass. Certain glass

cleaners also claim to provide special properties to the cleaned surface. For example, some

products claim to provide anti-fogging properties to bathroom mirrors. Other glass cleaners claim

to be no-drip or have fragrances added to the formulas. Glass cleaners are available from grocery

stores, discount stores, and warehouse stores. Glass cleaners are sold to household consumers,

janitors, restaurants, and other commercial or institutional establishments for glass cleaning and,

to a certain extent, for disinfection. 

Glass cleaners are used by household, commercial and industrial establishments. 

Depending on the cleaning application, both the delivery method and product form varies. The

ready-to-use product is generally used by the household consumer in a spray, or pump bottle. In

a household setting glass cleaners need to be able to clean a variety of soils such as food, grease,

and oils (including sebum, such as fingerprints) in addition to dust and other particulate. Oily

soils and particulate also need to be removed from inside vehicles windows. In addition,

consumers use glass cleaners to remove outdoor soils including mineral deposits, hard water

stains, dirt, and heavier soils including animal deposits. To clean these household soils, desirable

performance characteristics include ease of use, quick drying, and effectiveness in soil removal,

such that the product does not produce or leave streaks and/or solids on the glass surface. For

heavier soils, some concentrates are also marketed for use by household consumers

(Wessels, 1999).

Generally, the concentrated forms are most often used by commercial and industrial

establishments. Following dilution these products are applied to mirrors, high-rise exterior and

interior windows, “clear-guards” at food establishments, along manufacturing lines, or other glass

surfaces. In a manufacturing setting, glass cleaners need to effectively clean greases and oils, as

well as smoke from processes and fires, and other contaminants (Wessels, 1999). The product
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 143

can be applied to these glass surfaces indirectly through a medium that has been saturated with

liquid glass cleaner (such as a sponge), or directly onto the glass surface through aerosol delivery,

pump, or hose and removed with a cloth, paper towel, or squeegee tool. There is also a cost and

quantity issue for these large jobs. Concentrated products are usually supplied as refill packs, as

they offer savings in the amount of water transported and in the amount of plastic packaging

required (Dow Chem).

Product Formulation:

Non-aerosol glass cleaners are water-based formulations. A typical formulation includes

an alcohol and a glycol ether as active ingredients in water. However, some products contain

only an alcohol or glycol ether. The key role of these solvents is to dissolve greases and

oil-soluble soils. Glass cleaners also typically contain an LVP-VOC surfactant. Some

formulations may also contain ammonia or vinegar. The typical VOC content ranges from zero to

three percent in the concentrated products, and from zero to five percent in the ready-to-use

products.

The alcohols, typically ethanol or isopropanol, serve to enhance the water solubility and

contribute to increasing the evaporation rate, and decreasing the drying time, of the glass cleaner. 

The alcohol may also serve as a co-solvent to the glycol ether.

The glycol ethers (also known as cellosolves) in glass cleaner formulations are usually

2-butoxyethanol (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) and/or propylene glycol monomethyl ether 

(NSC, Nov. 7, 1997). They are widely used in aqueous based solutions due to their high degree

of water compatibility. Glycol ethers act as low molecular weight surfactants that reduce the

overall surface tension of water even at low concentrations. This is important for achieving

proper wetting and cleaning. Glycol ethers also can couple oils into water, to emulsify or hold

soil in suspension and not allow the “dirt” to re-deposit on the substrate (Dow Chem). Glycol

ethers also affect drying time.

A small quantity of surfactant (other than a glycol ether) is usually added to glass cleaner

formulations to wet the surface to be cleaned. Surfactant is short for “surface active agent” and

they are generally LVP-VOCs. Without the use of a surfactant, water tends to “bead up” in

droplets. Surfactants work at the layer between the soil and the solvent. Each surfactant

molecule has two chemical groups; one that is attracted to water (the hydrophile) and one that is

attracted to soil/oil (the hydrophobe). In a cleaning solution, the hydrophobic end of the

surfactant molecule orients toward the soil (Dawn). Anionic surfactants, for example sodium

lauryl sulfate, are effective in removing particulate and oily soils (SDA). In addition, they also

have a high affinity for water (Dow Chem).

Ammonia affects the pH level of the formula, because it is a moderately alkaline

substance. Alkalies are soluble salts that are effective in removing dirt without excessive rubbing. 

They are good grease removers, because the alkalies form an emulsion where the oil or
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 144

particulates are held in suspension in the aqueous solution. Because they are emulsified they are

not redeposited on the surface being cleaned (Walker).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The proposed VOC limit for ready-to-use non-aerosol glass cleaners is four percent by

weight VOC. As shown in Table VI-24, there is currently a 13 percent complying market share

for ready-to-use glass cleaners. The proposed VOC limit for concentrated glass cleaners is one

percent by weight VOC. As shown in Table VI-24, there is currently a thirty-one percent

complying market share for concentrated glass cleaners. Both limits would become effective

December 31, 2004.

To reformulate the noncomplying products to meet the non-aerosol glass cleaner limits,

manufacturers can lower the levels of alcohol/solvents, and/or may increase the surfactant

concentration. Some products can maintain their evaporative qualities and still be effective at

cleaning by increasing the level of surfactant and maintaining the current alcohol content. To

avoid streaking problems, different surfactants may need to be used. Additionally, low vapor

pressure glycol ethers may be used as solvents with the additional benefit that many of these also

have surfactant-like qualities.

The proposed bifurcation of VOC limits for the non-aerosol glass cleaners is appropriate

because the average VOC content in ready-to-use products is 5 percent, and 2 percent in the

concentrated products. It is important to note that for concentrated glass cleaner products the

VOC limit would apply to the minimum dilution.

Table VI-24

Glass Cleaners (non-aerosol)* Proposal

Product Form Limit (wt.%) Products (%) (lbs./day)**

Proposed VOC Complying Market Share Reductions

Complying Emission

Read-to-use 4 29 13 720

Concentrates 1 22 31 1,640

Total 51 44 2,360

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 145

Issues:

1. Issue: Industry has indicated that some glass cleaners, reported in the 1997 Survey as

dilutable, are actually “super concentrates” that are designed to be diluted and used as 

ready-to-use products. Because of this they have requested that a provision be added to the

regulation to allow these “super concentrates” to be defined as ready-to-use products and be

subject to the proposed ready-to-use VOC limit. They indicated that these products were a niche

market with limited sales, such that there would be a minimal impact on emission reductions if this

provision was included in the regulation.

Response: ARB staff evaluated this request based on information supplied by industry

which indicated that “super concentrates” could be defined as dilutable products which had

minimum dilution ratios of one-to-five or less. Staff determined that a number of products would

potentially qualify as “super concentrates” based on this criterion. The data also show that many

of these “super concentrates” are able to comply with the proposed VOC limit of one percent for

dilutable glass cleaners. Because the proposed VOC limit appears to be technologically feasible,

ARB staff determined the provision to be unnecessary. 

In those instances where there is a need for a concentrated product for special applications, such

as hard-to-removes soils, section 94509 of the regulation allows products to be used in their

concentrated form. However, the ARB staff acknowledges that, in some instances, manufacturers

may need to reformulate their “super concentrated” products to a ready-to-use product

formulation and no longer sell them as dilutables.

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of

Comments and Agency Responses: Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of a Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products, 

October, 1990c. (ARB, 1990c)

Air Resources Board (Survey, 1998), 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey,

February 28, 1998. 

Dow Chemical Company, HAPPI, Dec. 1996; Dow Chem News on Glycol Ether Solvents,

 Dec. 1993; The Dow Chemical Company, “Glycol Ethers for Cleaners”, PDF#110-00632, at 

www.dow.com (Dow Chem)

Wessels, B. B., Glass Cleaner, presentation to the Consumer Products Working Group of the Air

Resources Board, May 18, 1999, (Wessels, 1999)

http://www.sdahq.org/sdalatest/html/houseclean5.htm, Soap and Detergent Association, Facts

about Housecleaning (SDA)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 146

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/ew/chems/glycethe.htm National Safety Council, Environmental Health

Center (NSC, Nov. 7, 1997) 

http://129.8.104.30:8080/projects98/557.html, Why is Ammonia a Component of Cleaning

Products?, Crystal Walker, 1998 (Walker)

http://www.riponcoomputer.com/dawnchemical/chemistryofcleaning.htm, Dawn Chemical,

Incorporated Presents - The Chemistry of Cleaning (Dawn)

M. Hair Mousses

Product Category Description:

Hair mousses are foaming aerosol hair care products used for the primary purpose of

styling a coiffure and providing limited holding power.

Hair mousse products may also perform a secondary function ranging from conditioning

to sun protection to slightly modifying the color of the hair. Those products with dual uses are

included in this category only if their primary purpose is to facilitate styling and provide a limited

hold to the hair style. This category does not include hairsprays, hair styling gels, or hair shines,

which are also currently subject to the consumer products regulation.

Hair mousse products were regulated under “Phase I” of the consumer products

regulation adopted in August of 1990, and a description of these products is also included in the

staff report for that item (ARB, 1990a). At that time, the Board adopted a 16 percent VOC limit

for these products effective January 1, 1994.

Table VI-25 summarizes the sales and emissions from hair mousse products based on the

results of the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 1998). As

indicated, 136 products were sold in 1997 by 39 companies. The survey also indicates that

approximately 16,000 pounds of hair mousse products were sold daily in California, emitting a

total of 1,460 pounds per day of VOC. 

Table VI-25

Hair Mousses*

Product Form Products (lbs./day) (lbs./day)**

Number of Category Sales Emissions

Adjusted VOC

Aerosol 136 16,000 1,460

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 147

Hair mousse products are available for personal use in the home, and are also used in

commercial establishments such as hair styling salons. Hair mousse products are sold in discount,

department, drug, and grocery stores and are available for purchase on the Internet. They can

also be purchased in hair styling salons and beauty supply stores. 

Typical hair mousse product instructions direct the user to shake the product prior to

turning the container upside down and dispensing the product. For those products not packaged

in containers employing hydrocarbon and/or HFC-152a propellants (i.e. a self-pressurized

dispensing system, discussed in further detail below), there is no need to shake or invert the

product container. The product labels reviewed either direct the user to dispense varying amounts

of the product into the palm of the hand and then apply to dry or damp hair, or apply the product

directly to the hair. Some product labels indicate an approximate amount of hair mousse to be

used. The hair mousse is then worked through the hair prior to styling by the consumer’s

preferred method. 

Product Formulation: 

The VOC content of products in this category ranges from 0 to 16.3 percent by weight,

with a sales weighted average of 9.1 percent VOC by weight. All products in this category are

aerosol products. 

Since the cost of HFC-152a is higher than that of hydrocarbon propellants, consumer

product formulators typically use the minimum amount needed to meet VOC requirements, then

fulfill any additional propellant requirements through the use of hydrocarbons (Applegate). 

However, in the hair mousse product category, many manufacturers are producing products with

quantities of HFC-152a sufficient to yield a product far below the current 16 percent VOC limit. 

Several manufacturers reported hair mousse products formulated with HFC-152a as the sole

propellant, resulting in near-zero VOC products. The following hydrocarbon propellants, listed in

order of descending volume, were reported to be used in hair mousses: isobutane, propane,

butane, dimethyl ether, isopentane, and pentane. 

The solvent for hair mousses is typically water, present in the range of 74 to 92 percent by

weight for all products in the category, with an average water content of 82 percent. 

Resins, which provide the desired level of hold, may be either water soluble or alcohol

soluble. Polyquaternium-4, polyquaternium-46, PVP/VA, and PVP are among the polymer/resins

found in hair mousse products.

Conditioners such as polyquaternium-46, cocamidopropyl PG-dimonium chloride

phosphate, and polyquaternium-11 improve wet and dry combing, luster and feel, reduce flyaway

and enhance foam stability (ARB, 1990b).
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 148

Emulsifiers are present in hair mousses to insure a good dispersion of propellant in the

concentrate and good foam formation with the valve actuation. Emulsifiers must provide initial

stability upon application of the foam, and collapse when worked into the hair (ARB, 1990b). 

Emulsifiers commonly found in hair mouse products include, but are not limited to: oleth-20,

steareth-21, isosteareth-20, and isosteareth-10.

In addition to propellant, solvent, resins, emulsifiers, and conditioners, hair mousse

products may also contain ultraviolet absorbers such as benzophenone-4 or octyl salicylate, which

act as a sunscreen. Hair mousse products may also contain preservatives such as DMDM

hydantion, methylchlotoisothiazolinone, and methylisothiazolinone in small amounts. Of those

products reported to contain fragrances, none reported greater than 0.5 percent by weight

fragrance. Most hair mousse products are white, but a small number of products were found to

contain a colorant.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

As shown in Table VI-26 below, the proposed VOC limit for hair mousses is 6 percent by

weight. We believe that manufacturers will be able to comply with this limit using currently

available chemicals, and the limit does not rely on any new technologies. There were 136 hair

mousse products reported in our Survey; 39 of these products, representing 27 percent of the

market, would currently comply with the proposed 6 percent VOC limit. The proposed limit

would result in VOC emission reductions of approximately 600 pounds per day.

As previously mentioned, manufacturers are using HFC-152a in amounts greater than that

which is necessary to comply with the current standard of 16 percent by weight VOC. Because of

their surface properties, fluorocarbons offer a finer cell structure with a resulting smooth product

feel (Daly). HFC-152a yields foams creamier than those made with only hydrocarbon propellants,

and HFC-152a/hydrocarbon propellant blends yield aesthetically pleasing foams. By adjusting the

ratio of HFC-152a to hydrocarbons, either a creamier or a more brittle foam can be obtained

(Applegate). HFC-152a has a vapor pressure in the intermediate range and is miscible with

hydrocarbons (e.g., propane, isobutane and n-butane) as well as common aerosol solvents,

including alcohols. Higher or lower vapor pressure can be obtained, if required, when HFC-152a

is blended with hydrocarbon propellants or low-boiling solvents (Applegate). Fourteen products

reported in the Survey use an HFC-152a/hydrocarbon propellant blend. All products reported to

use an HFC 152a/hydrocarbon propellant blend comply with the proposed 

6 percent VOC limit.

Although HFC-152a imparts desirable properties to hair mousse products and many

manufacturers are over-complying through the use of this propellant, manufacturers are not

dependent upon it’s use to comply with the proposed limit. In addition to those hair mousse

products reported in our Survey that comply with the proposed limit through the use of 

HFC-152a or HFC-152a/hydrocarbon blends, there were 21 products reported that comply with

the proposed limit using only hydrocarbon propellants. Of those hydrocarbon propellant hair
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 149

mousse products that comply with the proposed limit, some contained a single hydrocarbon

propellant, and others used a hydrocarbon propellant blend.

Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations pertaining to container pressure specify

that the metal container in which the product is packaged must be capable of withstanding,

without bursting, a pressure of one and one-half times the equilibrium pressure of the can content

at 130 degrees Fahrenheit. DOT 2Q metal containers must be used if the pressure in the container

exceeds 160 psig at 130 degrees Fahrenheit. (49 CFR, Chapter 1, Subsection 173.306). Hair

mousse products, including those without HFC 152a, are typically packaged in DOT 2Q cans, so

it is not anticipated that manufacturers will incur any additional costs for cans able to withstand

greater equilibrium pressures brought about by the use of additional HFC-152a. 

In addition to the use of HFC-152a to replace a portion of the hydrocarbon propellants,

manufacturers have the option of using aerosol systems that do not require the use of propellants. 

A self-pressurized dispensing system is currently in use which consists of a thin-walled inner

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle with an integrated valve assembly, surrounded by a

natural rubber sleeve. Instead of using propellants, the rubber sleeve expands when the bottle is

filled with product, and when the user pushes the valve, the rubber sleeve’s natural tendency to

return to its normal size provides the dispensing power for the package (Sherwood). The system

is available in sizes typically used for shaving gels, and dispenses liquids, gels, creams and 

post-foaming products (Exxel). At least one product reported in the Survey (Vertu Trans Foam

by Tressa, Inc.) is packaged in this type of self-pressurized dispensing system.

Compressed gases offer manufacturers yet another avenue for meeting the proposed limit. 

While the Survey did not gather information specific to packaging systems, the literature indicates

that many hair mousses are packaged in the Advanced Barrier System, or ABS, in which

compressed air or nitrogen is often used to provide the required pressure against the bag needed

for dispensing. The ABS system separates the product in a hermetically sealed pouch. Regis

Mousse, Kenra Mousse, and Trade Secret Mousse are among the hair mousse products using the

ABS (Spray Technology & Marketing). 

Approximately one quarter of the hair mousse products reported in our Survey listed

ethanol as an ingredient in quantities ranging from approximately 2 to 10 percent by weight. In

addition to the above reformulation options, manufacturers have the option of lowering the VOC

content of these ethanol-containing products by replacing alcohol soluble resins with water

soluble resins. 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 150

Table VI-26

Hair Mousses Proposal*

Product VOC Limit Complying Complying Market Reductions

Form (wt. %) Products Share (%) (lbs./day)**

Proposed Adjusted Emission

Aerosol 6 39 27 600

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Staff Report, Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions from Consumer Products, August, 1990. (ARB, 1990a)

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document, Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products, August, 1990. (ARB, 1990b)

Air Resources Board, 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, February 28, 1998. 

(ARB, 1998)

Applegate, Lynn, Ph.D. Spray Technology & Marketing. “HFC-152a: A Valuable Propellant for

the Reduction of Volatile Organic Compounds.” April, 1995. (Applegate)

Daly, John J. Jr., Ph.D. Aerosol Age. “Emerging New Propellant Blends.” October, 1996. 

(Daly)

Exxel Container, Inc. Product literature for “ATMOS Dispensing System.” (Exxel)

Sherwood, Mark. Global Cosmetic Industry. “Winning the Shelf Wars.” March, 1999. 

(Sherwood)

Spray Technology & Marketing. “A Look at Barrier Packs.” April, 1997. (Spray Technology &

Marketing)

N. Lawn and Garden Insecticides (non-aerosol)

Product Category Description:

Lawn and garden insecticides are products intended to be used primarily by consumers in

the control of plant-attacking insects or pests such as ants, caterpillars, aphids, and beetles. These

products may also be used in janitorial, institutional or commercial settings, but do not include
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 151

those products designed specifically for use by licensed pest control operators (PCO’s).

All insecticides sold within California must be registered with the California Department of

Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and with the U.S. EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Insecticides used by PCO’s generally contain either higher levels of

active ingredients than their consumer-use counterparts or use ingredients which are deemed too

hazardous for consumer use. These products fall under the authority of the DPR, and are

excluded from this regulation since they are not available to the consumer.

Lawn and garden insecticides were regulated under “Phase II” of the consumer products

regulation which was adopted in January of 1992. The Board adopted a 20 percent VOC limit for

these products, effective January 1, 1995. For products subject to registration requirements under

FIFRA, an additional year is granted for compliance, so the actual effective date was January of

1996. Therefore, the proposal to reduce the VOC content of lawn and garden insecticides is

limited to non-aerosol products. The staff report for the Phase II regulation contains additional

information on these products (ARB, 1991).

Lawn and garden insecticides are typically ready to use emulsions, emulsifiable

concentrates or solid powders and granules. These products are all residual insecticides, designed

to provide slow acting but long lasting control. Bait stations are available for the control of

certain pests, including snails, grasshoppers, earwigs, ants, slugs, and others. A few aerosol

products are sold, but their use is limited, and 1 of the 4 aerosol products listed has since been

discontinued. Therefore, the proposal to reduce the VOC content of lawn and garden insecticides

is limited to non-aerosol products. The sales and emissions from the various product forms are

presented in the table below. The sales from baits are excluded to protect the confidentiality of

the data (less than four products).

Table VI-27

Lawn and Garden Insecticides*

Product Form Products (lbs./day)

Number of Category Sales Emissions (lbs./day)**

Adjusted VOC

Aerosols 4 380 80

Liquids/Pumps 111 577,000 3,420

Solids (no Baits) 41 48,800 360

Baits *** *** 0

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

*** Data excluded to protect confidentiality.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 152

Product Use and Marketing

Lawn and garden insecticides are sold in supermarkets, mass merchandise outlets,

hardware stores, nurseries and other locations. These products are used around homes, offices,

and commercial and institutional areas to control ants, aphids, grasshoppers and other bugs which

may damage plants. Control of garden bugs is necessary to prevent damage to garden and

ornamental plants.

Lawn and garden insecticides are primarily residual killers. The solid granules or

powdered insecticide, bound to an inert carrier such as clay, are sprinkled on the soil surrounding

the plants. Due to their low volatility, these products may provide protection for months after

application. The liquids and pump sprays are also used to distribute residual insecticide, but are

frequently sprayed directly on the plants. These products may also immediately kill the bugs,

since residual killers such as chlorpyrifos are also contact killers.

Because crawling bugs may be garden pests as well as household pests, there is some

potential overlap between the crawling bug and lawn and garden insecticide categories. Of the

four aerosol products reported in the Survey, two are house and garden products. The aerosol

products tend to be contact killers.

The pest baits are effective in long term control of slugs, snails, earwigs, ants and other

garden pests. These products are frequently sold in plastic housings, which make them safe for

use in areas where children or pets may tamper with them (Dangerous Pests, 1998; Trumans,

1997).

Product Formulation

Lawn and garden killers typically use diazinon, chlorpyrifos or carbaryl as their active

ingredient. Malathion, acephate and a few other actives are used, but on a more limited scale 

(see Section E, Crawling Bug Insecticides, for a discussion of active ingredients). These actives

are all insoluble in water, so they are generally formulated as emulsions or dusts. The average

VOC content for the category is less than 1 weight percent, which indicates that almost all

products are water-based or solids.

The current VOC limit for this category is 20 percent by weight. The aerosol products are

typically water-based, using about 15 percent hydrocarbon propellant to atomize the product. 

Since the actives and hydrocarbon propellant are insoluble in water, a small amount of surfactant

or co-solvent is added to emulsify the immiscible phases. The co-solvent, which may be up to 

5 percent of the product, may also aid in transporting the actives across the waxy cuticle of the

insect, increasing the speed of knockdown. These products generally require some shaking prior

to use to ensure adequate mixing.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 153

As stated above, the liquid and pump products in this category are nearly all water-based

formulations. When diluted at their minimum recommended dilution ratios, these products

typically have a VOC content of less than 1 percent. The active ingredient is typically an

organophosphate or carbamate which is emulsified. A few products are solvent-based, using both

VOC and LVP distillate rather than water. In these products, the actives are dissolved directly

into the LVP distillate (Survey, 1998; Trumans, 1997; IPM, 1999). 

Please see Section E, Crawling Bug Insecticides, for a discussion on baits.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The proposed VOC limit for the category is 3 percent by weight. This limit will only

apply to non-aerosol products. The current limit of 20 percent will remain in affect for the

aerosol products. The reductions and complying marketshare are shown below.

Table VI-28

Lawn and Garden Insecticides Proposal*

Product Form (wt. %) Products (%) (lbs/day)**

Proposed Complying Adjusted Emission

VOC Limit Complying Market Share Reductions

Non-aerosols 3 139 99 700

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Several major manufacturers and associations have agreed that the proposed 3 percent

limit is feasible. Manufacturers can reformulate to meet the 3 percent limit following the

strategies of the complying products. Emulsion technology, currently used by the majority of the

liquid/pump products in the category, is proven effective by the complying marketshare of over 99

percent. The active ingredients, which in this category are insoluble in water, can either be

impregnated onto a solid carrier such as clay, or combined with an emulsifier in an aqueous

solution. Alternatively, manufacturers may reformulate their products in solvent-based formulas

using LVP distillates or exempt solvents such as acetone. Complying solvent-based products are

currently marketed using these options.

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document, “Proposed Amendments to the Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - 

Phase II”, October, 1991b. (ARB, 1991)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 154

Air Resources Board, “1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey”, February 28, 1998. 

(1997 Survey)

“Truman’s Scientific Guide to Pest Control Operations, Fifth Edition.” Advanstar

Communications, 1997. Gary W. Bennett, Ph. D, John M. Owens, Ph.D, Robert M. Corrigan,

Ph.D. (Trumans, 1997).

“Dangerous Pests - The Impact of Insects on Human Health.” Chemical Specialties

Manufacturers Association, 1998. (Dangerous Pests, 1998).

“An Introduction to Insecticides.” National IPM Network, University of Minnesota. Internet

Web Site http://ipmworld.umn.edu. (IPM, 1999).

Meeting with S.C. Johnson, Scotts Company, MGK, CSMA and Staff, July 14, 1999. 

(SCJ, 1999).

O. Nail Polish Removers

Product Category Description:

The nail polish remover category consists of products which are designed and labeled

primarily for the purpose of removing nail polish or other nail coatings from the surface of

fingernails and toenails. These products generally consist of a solvent or mixture of solvents

which act to dissolve the nitrocellulose present in nail polish. Depending upon formulation, nail

polish removers may have a secondary function of removing artificial nails, wraps, and tips.

Nail polish removers were regulated under “Phase I” of the consumer products regulation

adopted in August of 1990, and a description of these products is also included in the staff report

for that item (ARB, 1990a). At that time, the Board adopted a tiered limit for these products,

with an 85 percent VOC limit effective on January 1, 1994, and a 75 percent VOC limit effective

on January 1, 1996.

Table VI-29 summarizes the adjusted California sales and emissions for nail polish

remover products based on the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey 

(ARB, 1998). As indicated, our Survey shows that 54 products were sold in 1997 by 

22 companies. In addition, major manufacturers that did not respond to our initial Survey were

contacted for additional information, and our market coverage factor is adjusted to reflect the

sales of those additional products. This equates to 8,120 pounds per day of nail polish remover

products sold in California, emitting a total of 1,700 pounds per day of VOC. 

Per our Survey, liquid nail polish removers are the most common product form. With the

exception of one product, a towelette, all products reported in the Survey were liquids. An
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 155

informal shelf survey of nail polish removers sold in Sacramento, California area stores and a

eview of products available on the Internet indicates that in addition to the liquid and towelette

product forms reported in our Survey, cream and gel product forms are also available to the

consumer. 

Table VI-29

Nail Polish Removers*

Product Form Number of Products (lbs./day) (lbs./day)**

Category Sales Adjusted VOC Emissions

All forms 54 8,120 1,700

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:

To remove nail polish, product use instructions for liquid nail polish removers generally

indicate that the nail polish remover is to be applied to a cotton ball, and the moistened cotton ball

wiped across the surface of the nail polish until the nail polish is removed (Revlon, IQ,a). If the

liquid is packaged in a jar with a sponge, the user is instructed to insert the fingernail into a precut hole in the sponge and rotate the finger (Del). Towelettes, which are pre-moistened with

product, are wiped across the surface of the nail polish until the nail polish is removed. Many

products bear no use directions (Albertson’s, Carson, Dayton Hudson, Famis).

Some acetone-based nail polish remover products indicate on the primary display panel

that they are intended to remove artificial nails and wraps and dissolve nail glue. A portion of

these products, although labeled as nail polish remover, provide directions for artificial nail

removal but not nail polish removal. In order to remove nail tips, wraps, or artificial nails, the

user is instructed to soak nails in the product. It may be necessary to file any additional residue

and clean the nail bed before applying any new nail products (IQ,b).

Nail polish removers are used in the home and in beauty salons by professional nail

technicians. Nail polish removers are sold in a variety of retail outlets, including grocery stores,

drug stores, beauty supply stores, discount stores, and department stores. They are also sold

through catalogs and over the Internet.

Product Formulation:

The nail polish remover product category consists of two main formulation types, those

products whose solvent is acetone, and products containing nonacetone solvents. The primary

solvent reported was acetone, and the primary nonacetone solvent was ethyl acetate. There were

a few products reported to use a blend of acetone and ethyl acetate. Of those products reporting

the use of an acetone/ethyl acetate blend, acetone was the primary solvent. In order to maintain
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 156

data confidentiality, the sales and emissions attributable to the acetone/ethyl acetate products are

combined with the sales and emissions of the nonacetone nail polish remover products. A few of

the products reported in our Survey and reviewed during our shelf survey were found to contain

methyl ethyl ketone, a federal hazardous air pollutant and identified by the ARB as a Toxic Air

Contaminant in April 1993. 

The VOC content of all products reported in this category ranges from 0 to 86 percent by

weight, with a sales weighted average of 22 percent by weight. The VOC content of acetone

finger nail polish remover products ranges from 0 to 9.8 percent by weight, with a sales weighted

average of 0.34 percent by weight. Because acetone is a primary constituent of these products

and is exempt from consideration as a VOC, these products have nearly zero emissions. The

VOC content of nonacetone products ranges from 18 to 86 percent by weight, with a sales

weighted average of 68 percent by weight.

 Nail polishes, including base coats and top coats, form a coating on the nail plate. The

majority of the ingredients in nail polishes are volatile solvents. As the solvents evaporate, a

smooth polymer film is left behind (Schoon, 1996). The primary and active ingredient in nail

polish remover products is a solvent, and in some cases a mixture of solvents, which functions to

dissolve the polymer film of nail polish. The polymers in the nail polish are not cross-linked, so

they dissolve easily in solvents, requiring only brief contact with the nail polish remover in order

to be removed.

In contrast to nail polish, most artificial nail enhancements are formed using cross linking

monomers which join polymer chains together. This results in a three-dimensional structure of

great strength and flexibility. In addition to increasing the strength, cross-linking causes the nail

enhancement to be impervious to nail polish removers, making removal difficult (Schoon, 1996). 

Our shelf survey indicates that many of the acetone finger nail polish remover products currently

on the market indicate they are safe for all nail types and/or bear no caution against using them on

artificial nail systems (also referred to as enhancements) for removal of nail polish (Albertson’s,

Carson, Dayton Hudson, Del, OPI, Revlon). In some instances, such as when gel nail

enhancements are used, the product can not be entirely removed with acetone, and the product

must be removed from the nail plate by filing (Schoon, 1996; IQ,b). Artificial nail enhancements

formulated with ethyl methacrylate, the most widely used monomer in the nail industry, require

soaking in acetone for 30 minutes for removal. Artificial nails formulated with methyl

methacrylate, a much less widely used monomer, require soaking for more than one hundred and

ninety minutes in acetone for removal (Schoon, 1999a).

All solvents used in nail polish removers, including ethyl acetate, methyl ethyl ketone, and

acetone, can remove water from the nail plate. However, the drying effect of these solvents is

only temporary because water continually flows up from the nail bed to the surface of the nail

plate, replacing water removed by solvents. Normal use of these solvents is unlikely to damage 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 157

the nail plate, but the temporary drying effects can be offset by the addition of water and

moisturizing agents to the product. (Schoon, 1996). 

Our Survey indicates several acetone-based products containing only solvent, and many

containing only solvent and water. All reported nonacetone nail polish remover products, which

as previously indicated are predominantly ethyl acetate based, contained alcohol (ethanol or

isopropanol) in quantities that ranged from approximately 10 to 29 percent by weight. 

Nail polish removers may also contain emollients and moisturizers, such as lanolin, aloe

extract, vitamin E, or jojoba oil to offset the drying effects of solvents and soften the skin;

denaturants, such as denatonium benzoate, to render the product unpalatable; sunscreens, such as

benzophenone-1, for product protection; and colorants and fragrances.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

As shown in Table VI-30 below, the proposed VOC limit for nail polish removers is 

0 percent by weight. We believe that manufacturers will be able to comply with this limit using

currently exempt chemicals, and the limit does not rely on any new technologies. Of the 54 nail

polish remover products reported in our Survey, 19 of these products, representing 35 percent of

the market, would comply with the proposed limit. The proposed limit would result in VOC

emission reductions of approximately 1,700 pounds per day.

The proposed limit of 0 percent VOC would preclude the use of VOC solvents such as

ethyl acetate. It is anticipated that manufacturers would achieve compliance through the use of

exempt solvents, such as acetone. The ARB approved the exemption of acetone as a VOC due to

its low reactivity (potential to form tropospheric ozone) on September 28, 1995. When this

exemption became legally effective on February 29, 1996, all nail polish removers formulated with

acetone as the only solvent became compliant with the limit set for this product category,

regardless of the amount of acetone in the product. 

Since the exemption of acetone, some products have appeared in the market place that are

greater than 75 percent acetone, but the majority have remained with the 75 percent acetone

formulation produced to meet the existing VOC limit (ARB, 1998). Many of the acetone nail

polish removers reported in our Survey are between 65 and 75 percent acetone, and 25 to 

35 percent water. Those artificial nail enhancement products that do not contain cross-linked

polymers, such as wraps and tip adhesives, are susceptible to damage or removal by acetone

(Schoon, 1996). Acetone nail polish removers can be used to remove nail polish applied over

these nail enhancement products, but it should be diluted with water (Schoon, 1999b), as are most

of the products in our Survey. 

As with previous consumer product limits, the proposed limit shall not apply to fragrances

up to a combined level of 2 percent by weight, so the proposed limit will allow for the use of

fragrances. 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 158

Table VI-30

Nail Polish Removers Proposal*

Product VOC Limit Complying Market Reductions

Form (wt. %) Products Share (%) (lbs./day)**

Proposed Complying Adjusted Emission

All forms 0 19 35 1,700

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Issues 

1. Issue: Acetone will dry out and damage the natural nail and the surrounding cuticle.

Response: Acetone can absorb some water from the natural nail plate, as can solvents

used in nonacetone nail polish removers. Normal moisture levels are restored quickly because

water is constantly flowing upward and evaporating from the surface of the nail plate. The

temporary dryness caused by these solvents causes no damage to the nail plate. Some nail polish

removers offset the drying effects of the solvent to the nail bed and surrounding cuticle by adding

water and/or moisturizing agents (Schoon, 1996).

2. Issue: Acetone is damaging to artificial nail enhancements.

Response: To remove nail polish from the surface of a natural or artificial nail, the nail is

not soaked in nail polish remover. The nail polish remover is applied to an applicator, such as a

cotton ball, and wiped across the surface of the nail polish only until removal is complete. The

majority of artificial nail enhancements are formed using cross-linking monomers which join

polymer chains together, creating a strong structure that is impervious to nail polish removers. 

For those artificial nail enhancements that do not contain cross-linked polymers and are, therefore,

more susceptible to degradation by acetone, a dilute acetone nail polish remover product should

be used. The short length of time the dilute acetone nail polish remover is in contact with the non

cross-linked artificial nail enhancement during nail polish removal is not a sufficient length of time

to result in degradation. 

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Staff Report, “Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions from Consumer Products”, August, 1990a. (ARB, 1990a)

Air Resources Board, 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, February 28, 1998. 

(ARB, 1998)

Albertson’s Incorporated. Product label for “Protein Enriched Nailtex Citrus.” (Albertson’s)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 159

Carson Products Company. Product label for “Quick & Gentle Cutex Nail Strengthening Polish

Remover.” (Carson)

Dayton Hudson Corporation. Product label for “Trend Basics Non-Smear/Non-Smudge Nail

Polish Remover.” (Dayton Hudson)

Del Laboratories, Inc., Sally Hanson Division. Product label for “Kwik Off Moisturizing Nail

Color Remover.” (Del)

Famis Manufacturing, Inc. Product label for “Deluxe Nail Polish Remover.” (Famis)

IQ Products Company. Product label for “Envi Professional Strength Nail Enamel Remover.” 

(IQ,b)

IQ Products Company. Product label for “Envi Acetone Free Nail Enamel Remover.” (IQ,a)

OPI Products Incorporated. Product label for “Polish Remover.” (OPI)

Revlon Consumer Products Corporation. Product label for “Extra Fast Nail Enamel Remover.” 

(Revlon) 

Schoon, Douglas D. Milady’s Nail Structure & Product Chemistry. Milady Publishing, 1996. 

(Schoon, 1996)

Schoon, Douglas D. “Comparison of Key Physical Properties and Adhesion Characteristics of

Typical Ethyl Methacrylate and Methyl Methacrylate Based Artificial Nail Products.” February,

1999. (Schoon, 1999a)

Schoon, Douglas D. Telephone conversation with ARB staff. June 9, 1999. (Schoon, 1999b)

P. Sealants and Caulking Compounds

Product Category Description:

Sealant and caulking compounds are products with adhesive properties that are designed

to fill, seal, waterproof, or waterproof gaps or joints between two surfaces. These products are

used to prevent air infiltration, heat loss, water penetration, insect entry, or to improve

appearance while being flexible and resistant to substrate movement. Sealant and caulking

compounds do not include roof cements/sealants, insulating foams, removable caulking products,

clear/paintable/water resistant caulking products, products designed exclusively for automotive

uses, and sealers that are applied as continuous coatings. Sealants and caulking compounds do

not include units of product, less packaging, which weigh more than one pound and consist of
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 160

more than 16 fluid ounces.

 While sealants and caulking compounds come in several forms, ten to eleven fluid ounce

disposable cartridges that fit in half-barrel caulking guns are the most common. Pressurized

caulking cartridges that do not require caulking guns and smaller squeeze tubes are available. 

Some types of sealants are available in aerosol cans. Caulking compounds vary in their ability to

adhere to different materials and in their resilience, durability, cost, and ease of clean-up. Some

caulking compounds have special properties, such as mildew resistance, high flexibility,

temperature resistance, abrasion resistance, paintability, and the ability to self-level.

As shown in Table VI-31, according to our Survey, 361 products that are 16 fluid ounces

or less were sold in California in 1997. Also, based on the Survey, over 108,000 pounds of

sealants and caulks that are 16 fluid ounces or less were sold daily in California during 1997. 

According to the Survey, these products emitted 3,740 pounds of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) per day for products that are 16 fluid ounces or less in California. The sales weighted

average VOC content for these products is 3.4 percent (Survey, 1998).

Many local districts have adopted rules to reduce emissions of VOCs for sealants which

apply to industrial and commercial applications. However, there are variations between the

definitions, exemptions, and VOC limits found in the sealant rules adopted by each district. In

December 1998, the “Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best

Available Retrofit Control Technology for Adhesives and Sealants” (RACT/BARCT) was

approved to aid districts in establishing consistent VOC limits for adhesives and sealants used in

commercial and industrial processes. 

Table VI-31

Sealants and Caulking Compounds*

Product Form Products (lbs./day) Emissions (lbs/day)**

Number of Category Sales Adjusted VOC

Liquid, Gel, and Other 361 108,340 3,740

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:

Sealant and caulking compounds are used extensively in the construction, remodeling, and

maintenance of houses and other structures in order to further weatherize and protect the

structure. There are many different types and uses for sealants and caulks, including: exterior

caulks, all-purpose indoor/outdoor caulks, removable caulks, roof repair sealants, elastomeric

caulks, high temperature caulks, and waterproof (submerged) caulks. Caulking is used for filling

gaps and cracks in the foundation, around windows and doors, vents, faucets, pipes, wiring,

outlets, ceiling fixtures, drains, bathtubs, and other uses around the house.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 161

There are 6 basic types of caulks and sealants on the market today: oil-based, acrylic latex,

butyl rubber, silicone-based, siliconized latex caulks, and polyurethanes (NebGuide).

1. Oil-based Sealants - Usually inexpensive, low durability caulks composed of drying

oils, such as linseed oil, and fillers. The oils slowly dry out and the caulk will show

significant hardening and cracking within a year. They also can discolor and stain the

surface to which they are applied when those surfaces are not primed (Klosowski).

2. Acrylic Latex Caulks - Often chosen for general use because of their low price,

durability, convenience, low odor, low toxicity, and effectiveness on both inside and

outside surfaces. Acrylic latex compounds will also last up to 10 years. These

compounds also remain durable and flexible after they have been applied, and are not

affected by the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays, alkali surfaces, or water. Acrylic latex

sealants will also adhere well to concrete, ceramic tile, paint, wood, sheet rock,

plaster, bricks, plastic, and glass. However, they are not recommended for use in

extreme temperatures, continuously damp areas, or for high-movement areas

(Klosowski).

3. Butyl Caulks - Used to seal exterior metal and masonry surfaces. They are 

solvent-based with a life expectancy of 2 to 5 years. Although butyl caulks can be

painted, they usually take from 3 to 7 days to dry. Advantages of butyl caulks include

their relatively low cost, good water resistance, and good adhesion without primers. 

Disadvantages include limited joint movement tolerance, a tendency for shrinkage,

and difficulty in forming a neat bead. However, butyl caulks will not become brittle

and have good resiliency. Clean up can be difficult because they require special

chemical solutions (Colombo).

4. Silicone-based Caulks - Have a wide variety of performance characteristics. They

are good for joints that move extensively, can be used at very low and high

temperatures, and have a fast cure rate. Silicone caulks also have excellent adhesion

to most materials, very little shrinkage, high flexibility, and are available in a clear

formula. Although this type of sealant will last for 10 years or more, most 

silicone-based compounds cannot be painted and have low tear resistance. But,

overall, silicone sealants are the best all-purpose caulk (Klosowski).

5. Siliconized Latex Caulks - Have similar performance characteristics to 

silicone-based caulks. Silicone is added to latex for increased durability, better

adhesion, and increased flexibility. Application is easy, clean-up is with water, and

the cost is lower than pure silicone. This caulk is paintable and comes in a variety of

colors. Cure time is between 12-24 hours and the caulk should not be exposed to

water in this period of time (Hardware). 

6. Polyurethanes - Have highly versatile properties and are used in a wide range of
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 162

commercial applications. Isocyanates are a major resin used in polyurethane sealant

and caulking compounds. They are available in tubes and easy-to-use aerosol cans. 

Polyurethanes are able to fill larger cracks because they expand when curing and can

act as both an insulation and an air barrier. They also have excellent adhesion to most

materials, are flexible, and can be applied at variable temperatures. However,

polyurethanes are usually high in cost and must be protected from UV radiation

(Wirpsza).

Sealants and caulks are sold in hardware stores, home supply stores, paint stores, hobby

and craft stores, and by mass merchandisers. Sealants are also sold to industrial or institutional

users through distributors or through direct sales by the manufacturer.

Product Formulation:

Sealants and caulking compounds generally have low solvent levels, high concentrations

of fillers, and are thick and nonpourable. Sealants and caulking compounds are either 

water-based or solvent-based. Water-based caulking compounds can be cleaned up with water

prior to curing. Solvent-based compounds must be cleaned up with solvents. Each type of

sealant or caulking compound formulation offers its own particular strength and weakness

depending on how it is used. Many products are formulated to meet the performance

requirements described in ASTM C-920, the “Standard Specification for Elastomeric Joint

Sealants.” A typical formulation might consist of the following:

1. Polymer - The most important contributing factor to the caulk or sealant’s

performance. It provides elastomeric and adhesive properties. Different types of

resins include oil-based, butyl, solvent-borne acrylic, block copolymer, polyvinyl

acetate, waterborne acrylic, polysulfide, polyurethane, silicone, and hybrid polymers

(Elmer’s).

2. Plasticizer - Improves sealant flexibility, extrudability of uncured product, and can

reduce cost. The plasticizer must be compatible with the polymer system being used. 

As the plasticizer content increases, adhesion decreases. Types of plasticizers include

phthalate, benzoate, and epoxidized oils (Elmer’s).

3. Fillers - Provides reinforcement to the product, can reduce product raw material

cost, adds desired color to the product, and can impart a sag or slump resistance. 

Types of fillers include calcium carbonate (chalk), aluminum silicate (clay), 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 163

magnesium silicate (talc), fumed silica, cellulosic fiber, organic clays, titanium

dioxide, carbon blacks, and metal oxides (Elmer’s).

4. Specialty Additives - Used to improve and enhance specific aspects of the sealant

such as weatherability, adhesion, package stability, and cure rate. Examples of

specialty additives are adhesion promoters, UV absorbers, catalysts, and waterborne

additives. Adhesion promoters, such as organotitanates and silane coupling agents,

provide adhesion to specific substrates. UV absorbers, which include hindered

amines and benzotriazoles, provide long term stability of the cured product and

eliminate surface cracking, chalking, or discoloration. Catalysts are another type of

specialty additive used to accelerate the cure rate. Types of catalysts include

peroxides, tertiary amines, and compounds based on nickel, tin, or platinum. Finally,

waterborne additives, such as freeze thaw stabilizers, are used to preserve the

integrity of latex particles. Examples of common waterborne additives are: ethylene

glycol, propylene glycol, urea, and isopropanol (Elmer’s). 

5. Diluents - Reduce the viscosity and aid in the application of the caulk. For 

water-based formulations, water is the primary diluent, however, some VOC 

co-solvents are used including: acetates (acetic acid, butyl acetate, vinyl acetate, etc.),

alcohols (ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, etc.), and glycols (ethylene glycol,

propylene glycol, diethylene glycol methyl ether, etc.). Diluents used in 

solvent-based formulations include: mineral spirits, hexane, Stoddard solvent,

toluene, and xylene. Manufacturers limit the amount of diluents to control shrinkage

resulting from the evaporation of the diluent during curing.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

The recommended limit for caulks and sealants is four percent by weight VOC effective

December 31, 2002. As determined by the ARB 1997 Survey, there is a 69 percent complying

market share, where 259 products have VOC contents below the proposed limit. Most or all of

the complying products are water-based formulations. Solvent-based caulks, such as the butyl

caulks and the polyurethanes, may reformulate by increasing the amount of non-diluents, using

lower concentrations of higher solvency VOCs, using low vapor pressure or exempt solvents, or

switching to a different polymer system. Over 55 percent of all caulks and sealants are 2 percent

VOC by weight or less (Survey, 1998). 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 164

Table VI-32

Sealants and Caulking Compounds Proposal*

Product Form (wt. %) Products Share (%) (lbs./day)**

Proposed Complying Adjusted Emission

VOC Limit Complying Market Reductions

Liquids, Gels, and Others 4 259 69 1,580

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Issues:

1. Issue: Aerosol insulating polyurethane and latex foams, which are sold in hand held

pressurized containers, should not be included under the caulk and sealant definition.

Response: Aerosol insulating foams are self-pressurized products designed to fill wider

gaps than regular caulking. They expand to fill the gap and can act as both an insulator and an air

barrier. Aerosol insulating foams vary from caulking compounds in that they contain very low

amounts of filler material, such as calcium carbonate. According to the ARB 1997 Survey, the

VOC emissions from these products are about 0.03 tons per day (tpd) statewide. These aerosol

insulating foams are specialized products and are not used like a caulking compound. Therefore,

we are proposing to exclude these products from this regulatory action. However, they may be

reviewed in future regulatory efforts. 

2. Issue: Some manufacturers have stated that removable caulking products should not be

included under the caulk and sealant definition.

Response: Removable caulks are specialized products that use a solvent release

technology and are designed to be removed cleanly after 3-6 months. They are used to

temporarily seal around doors or storm windows. We have identified two removable caulking

products in the ARB 1997 Survey with emissions of 0.01 tpd statewide. We currently are not

aware of any available technology that will meet the proposed limit for this specialized use, so we

have proposed to exclude these products from the proposed definition.

3. Issue: A VOC limit of 7 percent is more feasible than the proposed VOC limit set by

ARB due to difficulties in reformulating polyurethane sealants. These difficulties include: higher

viscosities, performance characteristics, self-leveling, and shortened shelf life.

Response: Staff believes that the nonaerosol polyurethane caulks can comply with the 

4 percent VOC limit. The sales weighted average VOC content is 5 percent for the 

18 nonaerosol polyurethane caulks included in the ARB 1997 Survey. Over one-third of these

nonaerosol polyurethane caulks in the Survey had a VOC content of 4 percent or lower.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 165

4. Issue: The proposed VOC limit of 4 percent will eliminate new types of high performance

silicone sealants which have substituted a neutral cure system for an acetic acid leaving group

which reduces corrosive properties and is less odorous to consumers. A VOC limit of 5-6 percent

was recommended for these high performance sealants. 

Response: We believe that silicone sealants can comply with the 4 percent VOC limit. 

The sales weighted average VOC content for silicone sealants was 2 percent in the ARB 1997

Survey. Over three-quarters of the silicone sealants have a VOC content of 4 percent or lower. 

Product literature and labels for many of these same silicone sealants indicate that they are high

performance sealants. 

 

5. Issue: Roof cements and sealants should not be included under this category.

Response: The roof cements and sealants are not included under this category. They are

included in a separate survey category under Cold Process Roof Cements. Almost all sales in

California are large sizes subject to district regulation. However, the products sold in small

containers meet the same VOC limits as larger sizes. These products are asphalt-based and

require nonpolar solvents such as mineral spirits or hydrocarbon solvents.

6. Issue: The category is too broad for a single VOC limit because there are too many end

uses. Industry suggested 11 specialty subcategories.

Response: ARB staff worked with industry to narrow down the suggested number of

specialty subcategories. Based upon the 1997 survey data, there are products in almost every

suggested subcategory that comply with the proposed limits. We have proposed a single category

with a VOC limit that will allow for formulation of the wide variety of available products.

7. Issue: Clear/paintable/water resistant caulks should be exempted from the regulation.

Response: Clear/paintable/water resistant caulks are based on a solvent-based synthetic

block co-polymer rubber, such as styrene-ethylene/butylene-styrene. These caulks cannot meet

the proposed VOC limit with currently available technology in order to satisfy all three

performance attributes. Because the VOC emissions for this type of caulk are 0.03 tpd statewide,

we have proposed exempting these caulks. We intend to monitor this exemption to determine if

lower VOC technologies are developed in the future.

8. Issue: Floor seam sealers should be exempted from the regulation.

Response: Floor seam sealers are products used in small quantities to fuse, bond, or seal

(coat) minute gaps or seams between adjoining edges of flexible sheet flooring (i.e., vinyl). Both

hot melt and solvent-based products are used depending upon the type of flooring installed. 

Solvent-based products contain up to 90 percent VOC to weld or fuse the wear layers of

adjoining sheets. As with other types of solvent welding cements for plastics (i.e., plastic pipe
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 166

cements), there are limited reformulation options. Although these products have a high VOC

content, the total statewide emissions are less than 0.04 tpd. We intend to monitor this exemption

to determine if lower VOC technologies are developed in the future or if a separate VOC limit

needs to be established.

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, “1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey”, February 28, 1998. 

(Survey, 1998)

Colombo’s Home Page. Internet Site. “How to Buy and Use Caulks and Sealants.” 

http://web.raex.com/~columbo/home1.htm. 1994. (Colombo)

Elmer’s Products. Presentation Mailed from the Adhesive and Sealant Council. June 14, 1999.

(Elmer’s)

Klosowski, Jerome M. Sealants in Construction. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel.

1989. pp 75-80. (Klosowski)

NebGuide. Internet Site. “Weatherizing Your Home--Caulking.”

http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/consumered/heg157.htm. 1987. (NebGuide)

Park Ave True Value. Internet Site. “Helpful Hints.” 

http://www.parkavetruevalue.com/hint.htm. 1996. (Hardware)

Wirpsza, Zygmunt. Polyurethanes - Chemistry, Technology and Applications. Ellis Horwood,

PTR Prentice Hall. 1993. pp 1-2. (Wirpsza)

Q. Tire Sealants and Inflators

Product Category Description:

“Tire Sealant and Inflators” are aerosol products designed to temporarily inflate and seal a

leaking tire. These products work by first inflating the tire with a propellant and then sealing

punctures in the tire with latex rubber or a related compound. This category does not include

products that are designed only to seal a tire or those products that seal and inflate with the aid of

pressurized air from a compressor or similar source. Products that are intended to prevent

punctures from occurring are also not included (e.g., sealant applied to an intact but empty tire,

which is then inflated with air from a compressor).
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 167

Table VI-33 below summarizes the sales and emissions from tire sealant and inflators 

based on the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. As shown in 

Table VI-33, these products account for sales of about 8,500 pounds per day (4.25 tons per day)

and VOC emissions of 0.89 tons per day (1,800 pounds per day).

Table VI-33

Tire Sealants and Inflators*

Product Form Number of Products (lbs./day) Emissions (lbs/day)**

Category Sales Adjusted VOC

Aerosol 13 8,500 1,800

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

Product Use and Marketing:

Tire sealants and inflators are used by drivers to temporarily fix a flat tire until a permanent

repair can be made. These products can fix a flat tire faster and more easily than replacing a flat

tire with a spare (an advantage in dangerous areas). However, they do not work on large holes or

on the sidewalls of a tire. For example, one manufacturer recommends their product for

punctures up to three sixteenths of an inch (Radiator Specialty product label).

To use these products, the driver typically attaches the flexible plastic hose or 

cone-shaped applicator on the product to the valve stem of the flat tire and depresses the actuator

button. The propellant temporarily inflates the tire and carries the product, including sealants, into

the tire. The driver is then instructed to drive the car without delay at low speed to help

distribute the sealant material on the inside of the tire, ensuring that it can seal the puncture. 

Users are also instructed to permanently repair the tire as soon as possible and to make the repair

facility aware that the tire has been repaired with an inflator and sealant product. This last step is

particularly important when the consumer uses a flammable tire inflator and sealant product that

may cause an explosion if a spark or other ignition source is inadvertently applied by the repair

facility (e.g., sparks resulting from contact of a puncture reamer with the steel belts inside the tire;

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, Oct. 1, 1998).

Product Formulation:

There are several different types of formulations used in tire sealants and inflators, which

can be generically categorized into flammable and nonflammable formulations. The flammable

formulations tend to be older-technology, hydrocarbon propellant-based products that are 

non-aqueous (e.g., those using propane, butane, or isobutane). Because of several recent

explosions and a product withdrawal by a major manufacturer (Pennzoil-Quaker State, 1999),

most marketers and retailers are now requiring manufacturers to provide nonflammable

formulations (Link, 1999). 

For the propellant system, nonflammable formulations typically use 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 168

1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a) (Radiator-Specialty, Prestone labels); dimethyl ether

modified by trichloroethylene and nitrogen gas (Snap Products, U.S. Patent 5,500,456); or a

mixture of carbon dioxide, dimethyl ether (DME), and nitrogen gas (IQ Products, U.S. Patent

5,284,895). While DME is normally flammable, when combined with a high amount of water and

the compressed gases as used in the Snap and IQ products, DME’s flammability is minimized in

the spray and is suppressed in the tire (Id.; Snap Products patent, op cit.).

In addition to the propellant, tire sealants and inflators contain other ingredients which are

critical to their functionality and efficacy. Latex, polyvinyl acetate, styrene-butadiene polymer,

cellulosic or asbestos fibers, and other substances are used as sealant materials. These solids are

carried in solution with various solvents, including water, acetone, medium aliphatic naphtha, and

perchloroethylene. In aqueous formulations, a corrosion inhibitor such as ammonium hydroxide

or triethanolamine is used as a pH stabilizer (IQ Products patent, op cit.). To allow the use of

these products in frigid conditions, manufacturers use freeze-point depressors such as propylene

glycol (Id.) or ethylene glycol (Prestone, op cit.). Because of the moderately high vapor pressure

of HFC-134a, manufacturers use ingredients such as 2-butoxyethanol 

(Radiator Specialty, U.S. Patent 5,124,395) or acetone (Pennzoil, U.S. Patent 5,705,604) as

vapor pressure depressants so that products containing HFC-134a can be packaged in

conventional DOT 2P or 2Q aerosol cans (Radiator Specialty patent, op cit.).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance:

We are proposing a 20 percent VOC limit for tire sealants and inflators effective

December 31, 2002. As shown in Table VI-34, four aerosol products would meet the proposed

limit if it were in effect today. These four products represented approximately half of the market

in California during 1997; as discussed below, it is likely these products and similarly

nonflammable, complying products comprise an even larger portion of the current market.

Table VI-34

Tire Sealants and Inflators Proposal*

Product VOC Limit Complying Market Adjusted Emission

Form (wt. %) Products Share (%) Reductions (lbs./day)**

Proposed Complying

Aerosol 20 4 50 640

* Based on 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (Survey, 1998)

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV).

The proposed VOC limit of 20 percent by weight is technically and commercially feasible

for several reasons. First, it is the minimum amount of VOC which representatives from the

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) and the Automotive Chemical

Manufacturers Council (ACMC) support as technically feasible for this category. Second, as

noted earlier, the four complying products which comprised half of the market in 1997 are all
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 169

labeled and advertised as nonflammable. Because of liability concerns about the potential for

explosions, most marketers and retailers are now requiring nonflammable formulations from their

suppliers (Chemical Market Reporter, 1999, op cit.). Thus, it is highly probable that the

complying market share for these and other similar nonflammable products is even greater than 50

percent in today’s market.

We expect manufacturers and marketers to comply with the proposed limit by making 

products similar to those that already comply. Since the four complying products are based on 

different patents, we expect manufacturers to either develop and market non-infringing

formulations or enter into licensing agreements with the patent holders. At least one

manufacturer has indicated that it would make a flammable product rather than enter into a

licensing agreement, but this approach would seem to limit that company’s market potential given

the overall trend toward nonflammable formulations. In any case, manufacturers are free to

choose for their own reasons whether to comply using flammable or nonflammable formulations.

Two of the patented complying formulations that are currently marketed are discussed

below in more detail. A third, recently-patented formulation based on methylene chloride, is also

discussed as another option that will be available to marketers and manufacturers.

U.S. Patent 5,124,395 (Abramowski, Horst and James D. Wells, Radiator Specialty; filed

April 25, 1991)

This patented formulation is marketed under various brand names, including “Solder SealGunk Puncture Seal,” “Prestone Tire Jack,” and others. Its distinguishing feature is the use of

HFC-134a as a propellant to provide nonflammability. While HFC-134a is considered a

greenhouse gas (Johnsen, 1997; U.S.EPA, 1998), the U.S. EPA lists HFC-134a as an acceptable

substitute for ozone-depleting propellants under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)

Program (Id., as of 5/25/99). DuPont, a major supplier of HFC-134a, has also stated that the use

of HFC-134a in tire inflators for its nonflammable properties is an acceptable, emissive use of this

greenhouse gas (Guidemal, 1999). In contrast, the U.S. EPA with DuPont’s support recently

prohibited the emissive use of HFC-134a in a noncritical application (self-chilling soft drink

container), due to the potentially significant impact on global warming (64 FR 10373, 10375,

March 3, 1999).
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 170

The patent describes a preferred sealant composition that yields a product for use in a

DOT 2P can as follows:

Ingredient Weight Percent

Water 42.5

Ammonium hydroxide 0.4

Vinyl acetate copolymer 4.2

Ethylene glycol 2.5

Butyl cellosolve 12.4

HFC-134a 38

As this preferred formulation shows, a manufacturer which makes this or a similar formulation

could easily meet the proposed limit with a VOC content of 12.4 percent (from the butyl

cellosolve, also known as 2-butoxyethanol). Ethylene glycol qualifies as a non-regulated 

LVP-VOC, and HFC-134a is exempt as non-ozone forming under the VOC definition 

(section 94508, title 17, CCR).

One manufacturer has stated that, in its legal opinion, the recent reexamination of the

Abramowski and Wells patent by the U.S. Patent Office (U.S. PTO Reexamination Certificate

3787 , issued June 22, 1999) precludes essentially all formulations using HFC-134a th

(until the patent expires in April 2011) (McDonald and Raymond telecon, 1999). However, this

manufacturer provided no written legal analysis, which ARB counsel could evaluate on its merits,

of the patent reexamination to support this claim. Indeed, the reexamination seems to confirm as

patentable those formulations containing 20 to 80 percent by weight HFC-134a, rather than all

formulations containing any amount of HFC-134a (see Claims 5, 6, 20, 28-33, 44-46, and 48;

Radiator Specialty patent, op cit.). Moreover, if the reexamination achieved the result as claimed,

the U.S. PTO would have invalidated 4 different patents based on HFC-134a, which it issued

subsequent to the Abramowski and Wells patent (see U.S. Patents 5,705,604, Pennzoil Products

Co.; 5,338,776, Aerosol Systems, Inc.; 5,618,912, Pennzoil Products Co.; and 5,648,406,

Specialty Chemical Resources). It is unlikely that the U.S. PTO would have intended such a

result, given the potential liability the federal government would have to the affected companies

that detrimentally relied on the U.S. PTO’s issuance of their patents.

The issue of possible retroactive patent infringements because of the claimed implications

of the reexamination has not yet been tried in court. However, even in the unlikely scenario that

the claim discussed above were true, manufacturers would still be able to market complying

products based on HFC-134a by entering into a licensing agreement with the patent holders 

(for example, see Prestone Tire Jack product label, op cit.). In any case, manufacturers have over

three years until the end of 2002 to develop and market a non-infringing product, license the

above patented formulation, or license one of the following alternative formulations that are not

based on HFC-134a.

U.S. Patent 5,284,895 (Pradeep Y. Gupta, c/o IQ Holdings, Inc.)
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 171

This patented formulation is marketed under various brand names, including “AirUp,”

“RepairSafe,” and “Primis” tire sealants and inflators. Its distinguishing feature is the use of an

azeotropic blend of dimethyl ether, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas as the propellant to provide a

nonflammable product to the consumer. The dimethyl ether also serves as the solvent carrier

(along with water) to solubilize and transfer the latex sealant into the tire. The patent does not

provide a single preferred composition, but one can infer from the patent a product composition

that yields a nonflammable, non-ozone depleting product as follows:

Ingredient Weight Percent

Water 56

Ammonium hydroxide 0.5

Polyvinyl acetate 20

Propylene glycol 3.0

Mineral oil (anti-foam) 0.5

Carbon dioxide + nitrogen 3.0

Dimethyl ether 17

As this preferred formulation shows, a manufacturer which makes this or a similar formulation

could meet the proposed limit with a VOC content of 20 percent (from the dimethyl ether and

propylene glycol). If ethylene glycol is used in place of propylene glycol, the calculated VOC

content would be less than 20 percent, since ethylene glycol qualifies as a non-regulated 

LVP-VOC as noted previously. 

U.S. Patent 5,834,534 (Adams, Lawrence J. and Paul D. Hughett, Engine Fog Inc., filed

November 4, 1996)

Because this patent was issued in 1998, we do not know if the patented formulation was 

marketed in California during 1997. Nevertheless, the formulation has the potential for use as a

complying tire sealant and inflator because of its low VOC content and virtual nonflammability. 

Unlike the previous patent, the distinguishing feature of this patent is its complete reliance on

compressed gas (preferably carbon dioxide) as the sole propellant needed to inflate the tire. The

formulation accomplishes this feat by using the high solubility of carbon dioxide in methylene

chloride (MEC), a non-VOC solvent under section 94508 (title 17, CCR), supplemented by

methylene chloride’s relatively high vapor pressure. While MEC is considered a Toxic Air

Contaminant, it remains a legally-available ingredient in consumer products. Indeed, the 

U.S. EPA lists MEC as an acceptable substitute for ozone-depleting substances under its SNAP

Program. The U.S. EPA specifically identified the acceptability of MEC when it is used as an

alternative solvent in aerosols in which nonflammability is a critical factor (Spray Tech. &

Marketing, Jan. 1997, citing 59 FR 13044-13161). 
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 172

The patent describes a preferred sealant composition as follows:

Ingredient Weight Percent

Deionized Water 30.55

“Hycar” nitrile latex 7.174

IGEPAL CA-897 (surfactant) 1.739

Triethanolamine (99%) 0.500

“Mazon RI-6" 0.300

“Epoxol 9-5" 0.300

“Fibra-Cel SW-10" 0.587

Methylal 11.00

Methylene Chloride 43.50

Carbon dioxide 4.350

Of these ingredients, only methylal (dimethoxymethane) would be counted as a VOC, giving this

compliant preferred composition a VOC content of 11 percent by weight. Like methylene

chloride, methylal is used in this composition because of its relatively high vapor pressure and its

high degree of solubility of carbon dioxide, effectively serving as a gas reservoir 

(Beaujean, 1993). For similar reasons, acetone could be substituted in place of methylal for its

high vapor pressure and high degree of solubility of carbon dioxide, further reducing the VOC

content. As this preferred formulation shows, a manufacturer which makes this or a similar

formulation could easily meet the proposed limit.

REFERENCES

Aerosol Systems, Inc., “Tire sealer and inflator,” U.S. Patent 5,338,776 (issued to Peelor, 

Philip L.; Moran, John J.; Flanner, Lloyd T.), filed November 10, 1993.

Air Resources Board, “1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey”, February 28, 1998.

Automotive Chemical Manufacturers Council, [support of 20% limit]

Beaujean, Michael, “Methylal: How does this solvent -- relatively new to the aerosol industry --

fit into new aerosol and pump product formulations?,” Spray Technology & Marketing,

December 1993, p. 46.

Chemical Specialty Manufacturers Association, [support of 20% limit]

Engine Fog, Inc., “Tire inflating and puncture sealing composition,” U.S. Patent 5,834,534

(issued to Adams, Lawrence J. and Paul D. Hughett), filed November 4, 1996.

Guidemal, Sharon, DuPont de Nemours, personal communication with Floyd Vergara and other

ARB staff, ca. June 1999.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 173

Johnsen, Montfort A., “The Greenhouse Effect (Revisited),” Spray Technology and Marketing,

February 1997, p.2.

IQ Holdings, “Aerosol formulation for a pneumatic tire puncture sealer and inflator which is nonflammable, non-explosive, non-toxic, and without any ozone depleting chemicals,” 

U.S. Patent 5,284,895 (issued to Pradeep Y. Gupta), filed February 19, 1991.

Link, Janet, “HFC-134a Prices Rise as Market Tightens (dated 3/15/99),” Chemical Market

Reporter, (ISSN: 0090-0907) p.4, cited through Northern Light Special Collection 

(Document ID CK19990324010004828).

Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, “Safety Alert No.1: Tire Sealants -- A Bomb

Looking for an Ignition Source (dated October 1, 1998),” <http://process-safety.tamu.edu/

Safety-Alert/Alert1.htm>, visited on 4/8/99.

McDonald, Robert E. and Douglas Raymond, personal communication with Floyd Vergara and

other ARB staff, June 18, 1999.

Pennzoil-Quaker State Co., “Fix-A-Flat Voluntary Withdrawal,” <http://www.pennzoil- ®

quakerstate.com/brands/fix-a-flat_withdrawal.htm>, visited on 4/8/99.

Pennzoil Products Co., “Tire sealer and inflator compositions,” U.S. Patent 5,618,912 

(issued to Jiafu Fang), filed May 4, 1995.

Pennzoil Products Co., “Tire sealer and inflator compositions,” U.S. Patent 5,705,604 

(issued to Jiafu Fang), filed June 28, 1996.

Prestone Products Corp., product label for “Tire Jack” tire inflator and sealant.

Radiator Specialty Co., “Non-ozone depleting, non-flammable tire sealer and inflater [sic]

composition,” U.S. Patent 5,124,395 (issued to Abramowski, Horst and James D. Wells), 

filed April 25, 1991.

Radiator Specialty Co., product label for “Solder Seal/Gunk Tire Inflator and Sealant.”

Snap Products Inc., “Tire sealer and inflator,” U.S. Patent 5,500,456 (issued to Hughett, Paul D.

and Montfort A. Johnsen), filed January 26, 1994.

Specialty Chemical Resources, Inc., “Tire sealant and inflator,” U.S. Patent 5,648,406 (issued to

Peelor, Phil and Lloyd T. Flanner), filed August 15, 1994.

Spray Technology & Marketing, “Update: Methylene Chloride in Aerosols,” Spray Technology &

Marketing, January 1997, p.20.
Volume II, Chapter VI, Page 174

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:

Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances; Final Rule,” 64 FR 10373-10378, 

March 3, 1999.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), “Substitute Aerosols Under SNAP

as of February 24, 1998,” <http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/snap/lists/aerosol.pdf>, visited on

5/25/99.
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 175

VII.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

A. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Air Resources Board (ARB) staff have investigated the potential environmental impacts of

the proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation (Regulation). This analysis

shows that the proposed amendments would reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions

statewide. It is anticipated that the resulting reduction in VOCs will reduce the formation of

ground level ozone and particulate matter with diameters less than ten micrometers (PM10). In

accordance with California Environmental Protection Agency policy, we conducted a health risk

assessment, which concludes that public health would be improved by reducing VOC emissions. 

Moreover, ARB staff has determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts should

occur as a result of the proposed amendments, with one exception that is discussed below in

Section C (i.e. a temporary increase in VOC emissions from general purpose degreasers). The

following environmental analysis provides the basis for our findings.

B. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE ANALYSIS

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and ARB policy require an analysis to

determine the potential adverse environmental impacts of proposed regulations. Because the

ARB’s program involving the adoption of regulations has been certified by the Secretary of

Resources (see Public Resources Code section 21080.5), the CEQA environmental analysis

requirements are allowed to be included in the ARB Initial Statement of Reasons in lieu of

preparing an environmental impact report or negative declaration. In addition, the ARB will

respond in writing to all significant environmental points raised by the public during the public

review period or at the Board hearing. These responses will be contained in the Final Statement

of Reasons for the proposed amendments to the Regulation.

Public Resources Code section 21159 requires that the environmental impact analysis

conducted by ARB include the following: (1) an analysis of the reasonably foreseeable

environmental impacts of the methods of compliance, (2) an analysis of reasonably foreseeable

feasible mitigation measures, and (3) an analysis of reasonably foreseeable alternative means of

compliance with the Regulation. 

Our analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the methods of

compliance is presented in Sections C through F below. Regarding reasonably foreseeable

mitigation measures, CEQA requires an agency to identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures

that would minimize any significant adverse environmental impacts described in the environmental

analysis. The ARB staff has identified only one significant adverse environmental impact: a

temporary increase in VOC emissions from general purpose degreasers, 
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 176

occurring between 2001 and 2004. This impact, and the one mitigation measure identified by the

ARB staff, is discused below in Section C. 

Two alternative means of compliance with the Regulation have been developed. A current

compliance alternative for manufacturers of consumer products is the Alternative Control Plan

(ACP). The ACP regulation, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94540-94555, is a

voluntary market-based regulation that utilizes the concept of an aggregate emission cap, or

“bubble.” An emissions bubble places an overall limit on the VOC content of emissions from each

individual product. To be approved, an ACP must demonstrate that the total VOC emissions

under the bubble would not exceed the emissions that would have resulted had the products been

formulated to meet the VOC limit established for each product. In other words, some products in

the ACP could exceed the established VOC limits in the Regulation as long as those increased

emissions were offset by additional products that over-comply with the established VOC limits. 

The ACP provides manufacturers with flexibility, but preserves the overall environmental benefits

of emission reductions (ARB, 1994a).

Another compliance alternative that is available for manufacturers is the Innovative

Products Provision specified in Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 94511. This

provision allows a manufacturer to formulate products that exceed the mass-based limit specified

in the Regulation for a particular product category. The manufacturer must demonstrate that,

through some characteristic of the higher VOC product, its use will result in less VOC emissions

compared to a representative complying product. This alternative is also specifically designed to

allow manufacturers flexibility, while preserving the emission benefits of the regulation.

C. VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

Impact on Ground Level Ozone

The primary intent of the proposed amendments to the Regulation is to reduce the

formation of tropospheric, or ground-level, ozone by reducing the VOC emissions from

unregulated and previously regulated consumer products. The formation of tropospheric ozone

requires a mix of VOCs, nitrogen oxides, oxygen and sunlight (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). 

Therefore, the reduction in VOC emissions from these amendments is expected to provide a

beneficial environmental impact on air quality and public health by reducing tropospheric ozone

formation. The proposed amendments contain VOC limits for 17 product categories. The limits

are designed to achieve the maximum VOC reductions that are commercially and technically

feasible at this time for each category. Based on the results of the 1997 Consumer and

Commercial Products Survey (Survey), these products emitted about 48 tons per day (tpd) of

VOCs in California in 1997. Because market coverage was less than 100 percent in most product

categories, the emissions were adjusted upwards to account for under-reporting in these

categories. The estimated actual emissions from these categories is about 54 tpd (see Chapter IV

for more details). The reduction in VOC emissions from the proposed limits is expected to be
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 177

about 21 tpd based on 1997 sales data. The product categories, their emissions, and expected

emission reductions as a result of the proposed amendments are shown in Table VII-1. 

Depending on the product category, the limits will become effective as early as 

December 31, 2002, or as late as December 31, 2004. 

Table VII-1

Summary of Emissions and Emission Reductions from the Proposed Limits

Product Category (Tons/day) (Tons/Day) Reduction

1997 VOC Adjusted 1997

Emissions Emission Percent

Adjusted Reductions Emission

Automotive Brake Cleaners 

Aerosols 5.26 0.29 6

Non-Aerosols 0.34 0.02 6

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids 

(Non-Type A Areas) 8.30 7.42 89

Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake 

Cleaners

Aerosols 6.25 2.14 34

Non-Aerosols 0.23 0.05 22

Construction, Panel and Floor 

Covering Adhesive 1.00 0.44 44

Crawling Bug Insecticides 

Aerosols 3.81 0.49 13

Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners 4.57 1.54 34

Engine Degreasers

Aerosols 1.67 0.37 22

Non-aerosols 0.08 0.05 63

Flying Bug Insecticides 

Aerosols 0.60 0.11 18

Furniture Maintenance Products 

Aerosols 1.98 0.35 18

General Purpose Cleaners (non-aerosols) 

Ready-to-Use 3.18 1.05 33

Dilutables 4.77 0.41 9
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 178

Product Category (Tons/day) (Tons/Day) Reduction

1997 VOC Adjusted 1997

Emissions Emission Percent

Adjusted Reductions Emission

Solvent Parts Cleaners (included under

aerosol general purpose degreasers) 0.73 0.36 49

General Purpose Degreasers (non-aerosols)

Ready-to-Use 0.95 0.15 16

Dilutables 1.09 0.41 38

Glass Cleaners (non-aerosols) 

Ready-to-Use 2.27 0.36 16

Dilutables 1.21 0.82 68

Hair Mousses 0.76 0.33 43

Lawn and Garden Insecticides 

Non-Aerosols 1.35 0.35 26

Nail Polish Removers 0.85 0.85 100

Sealant and Caulking Compounds 1.87 0.79 42

Tire Sealants and Inflators 0.89 0.32 36

Total Emissions 54.01 19.47 36

Acetone Credit-Nail Polish Remover 1.51

Total Combined Reduction 54.01 20.98 39

While the proposed amendments to the Regulation will provide an overall reduction in

VOC emissions, there will be a temporary negative environmental impact due to excess VOC

emissions from the general purpose degreaser category. The proposed amendments will result in 

more stringent VOC limits for non-aerosol degreasers, but will also repeal the 10 percent limit

scheduled to become effective on January 1, 2001. The more stringent VOC limits would become

effective on December 31, 2004. Hence, a four year temporary negative impact will result. The

four year lead time for the more stringent VOC limits is needed to preserve the commercial and

technological feasibility of the VOC limits and ensure that basic market demand can be met. 

However, we are also proposing to increase the reductions from aerosol general purpose

degreasers, beginning January 1, 2002, by including solvent parts cleaners in the general purpose

degreaser definition. Therefore, the greatest impact of repealing the existing VOC limit will occur

in 2001, when the excess emissions will be 0.77 tpd statewide. From 2002 to 2004, the inclusion

of solvent parts cleaners in the aerosol general purpose degreaser definition, together with the 50

percent VOC standard for aerosol general purpose degreasers (which becomes effective on

January 1, 2002), will partially offset the excess emissions resulting from repealing the VOC limit. 
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 179

Consequently, the statewide average annual excess emissions from 2001 to 2004 will be 0.49 tpd

for this four-year period. This amendment to the general purpose degreaser definition is the only

feasible mitigation measure that the ARB staff has been able to identify. No adverse

environmental impacts are expected from this mitigation measure, for the same reasons that no

adverse impacts are expected from the adoption of the other VOC limits specified in this

regulatory action. 

Beginning in 2005, when the proposed amendments are fully implemented, the total

emission reductions from general purpose degreasers will be 1.1 tpd greater than under the

existing limits. Repealing the existing VOC limit for nonaerosol general purpose degreasers will

allow additional time for manufacturers to improve the emerging technologies that may be needed

to develop commercially viable products that meet the more stringent 2004 VOC limits in this

proposal. The proposed amendments will also avoid the implementation of two separate VOC

limits for nonaerosol general purpose degreasers within a relatively short period of time, which

would result in significant cost impacts to many manufacturers. Finally, with the proposed

amendments, we will still meet and exceed our SIP commitments in 2002. Overall, we believe

that these considerations override any adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed

amendments. Further discussion of the ARB’s rationale for the proposed amendments is

contained in the discussion of the general purpose degreaser category in Chapter VI.

Impact on Particulate Matter

By reducing VOCs, the proposed amendments would also have an additional positive

environmental impact by reducing the amount of particulate matter (PM) in the atmosphere. Of

importance here are secondary particles, i.e., particles that are formed in the atmosphere as a

result of chemical reactions that involve low vapor pressure organic gases and reactive oxygen

species, such as ozone (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998; Godish, 1990). Organic aerosols formed by

gas-phase photochemical reactions of hydrocarbons, ozone, and nitrogen oxides have been

identified in both urban and rural atmospheres (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). Secondary particles

generally have aerodynamic diameters less than 10 micrometers (PM ), and particularly 10

2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), which is the particle diameter range most likely to be inhaled deep into

lungs and lead to respiratory injury (U.S. EPA, 1997a). In addition, carcinogenic polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbon compounds and heavy metals may be concentrated in these secondary

particles (Godish, 1991). For a further description of the effects of PM on health and the

environment, refer to Chapter IV of this report. Therefore, by reducing the VOC content of

consumer products, as proposed in these amendments, fewer VOCs would be emitted leading to

less PM formed in the atmosphere. This outcome will result in a positive environmental impact

on air quality and public health. 
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 180

Risk Assessment for Reduced Exposure to Ozone and PM10

The actual health risk reductions that would result from the adoption of this regulation

cannot be quantified due to lack of appropriate data. However, the VOC reductions from the

proposed amendments represent a partial fulfillment of the State Implementation Plan (SIP),

which when fully implemented by 2010, will allow all non-attainment regions of the State to reach

attainment for ozone (ARB, 1994b). The proposed amendments will also reduce PM and PM , 2.5 10

albeit in an indirect way as explained earlier. Further measures outside the scope of these

proposed amendments will be needed to fully address the PM health concerns. The health risks 10

associated with ozone and PM exposure have been known for many years. With regard to ozone,

studies have shown that when inhaled, even at relatively low levels, ozone can cause:

 1) inflammation of lung tissue; 2) aggravation of asthma; 3) significant decreases in lung capacity

of 15 to over 20 percent in some healthy adults; 4) increased hospital admissions and emergency

room visits; 5) impairment of the body’s immune system defenses; and 6) increased susceptibility

to respiratory illnesses (U.S. EPA, 1996a; U.S. EPA, 1997b). 

Similar health effects have been associated with PM exposure. These health effects

include: 1) premature mortality; 2) aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease;

3) changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms; 4) changes in lung structure; and

5) altered respiratory defense mechanisms (U.S. EPA, 1997a). Although it is not easily

quantified, recent information made available by U.S. EPA clearly shows a correlation between

ozone and PM reduction and improved public health (U.S. EPA, 1996a). Based on an analysis of

86 PM studies and 185 recent ozone studies, U.S. EPA could quantitatively estimate the health

benefits that result from lower ozone and PM concentrations. These estimates indicate that 10

there would be significant reductions in breathing problems, hospital admissions, premature

mortality, and missed school and work days (U.S. EPA, 1996a). Illnesses in children, such as

lung inflammation and severe asthmatic episodes, would also be significantly reduced 

(U.S. EPA, 1996a).

Due to lack of appropriate data, we are unable to directly compare the estimated health

risk reductions resulting from the proposed regulation with the health risk reductions from similar

regulations. However, we are able to compare the VOC emission reductions from the proposed

regulation with other consumer product regulations adopted by the ARB. The proposed

regulation is designed to achieve the maximum feasible VOC emission reductions from the

categories proposed for regulation at this time. Based on the 1997 data, these reductions equate

to a total of about 21 tpd from the 17 product categories. This represents a 39 percent reduction

in VOC emissions from these categories. This compares favorably with other consumer product

regulations adopted by ARB. The Phase II consumer products regulation reduces VOC emissions

from over 28 tpd to about 19 tpd, a 35 percent reduction (ARB, 1991a). The Mid-term Measures

consumer products regulation reduces VOC emissions from 32 tpd to about 16 tpd, a 50 percent

reduction (ARB, 1997). The ARB has also adopted an Aerosol Coating Regulation that, when

fully implemented, will reduce VOC emissions by 42 percent, from 30 tpd to 17.4 tpd (ARB,

1998). At the federal level, the U.S. EPA has adopted and implemented a national consumer
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 181

product regulation to reduce VOC emissions from 

24 consumer product categories by 20 percent (U.S. EPA, 1998a).

In summary, our health risk analysis shows that, by achieving these reductions, this

regulation would reduce health risks by a similar magnitude as other regulations adopted by the

ARB and other environmental agencies. To what extent this regulation would reduce ozone and

PM concentrations is difficult to quantify and contingent on many factors. It is clear, however, 10

that by reducing ozone and PM concentrations, this regulation would reduce the health risks 10

posed by exposure to these pollutants.

D. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON GLOBAL WARMING AND

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION

Impact on Global Warming

Currently, there is much concern over the impact of human activities that are altering the

amount of heat, or infrared, radiation that can escape the Earth’s surface. Global warming is the

theory that increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) and other anthropogenically-produced “greenhouse

gases” decrease the amount of infrared energy that escapes the earth’s atmosphere

(Godish, 1991). The result would be a gradual increase in the average temperature at the earth’s

surface. 

CO has been the main focus of greenhouse concerns. It is estimated that the largest 2

source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (U.S.) is CO from fossil fuel 2

combustion, which accounted for 81 percent of all greenhouse gases in 1996 (U.S. EPA, 1998b). 

CO2 and water vapor limits the transmission of infrared radiation to space in many wavelength

regions, particularly in much of the 8-20 um region. However, almost 80 percent of infrared

radiation emitted by the surface of the earth escapes to space through an atmospheric, or infrared,

window in the electromagnetic spectrum region of 7-13 um, where infrared absorption by CO2

and water vapor are very weak (Godish, 1990; Graedel and Crutzen, 1993). Synthetic gases such

as chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) absorb strongly in the window

region and are therefore much more effective as greenhouse gases than CO ; on a molecule-for 2

molecule basis, they can be thousands of times more efficient in absorbing infrared energy

(Godish, 1990). Worldwide, the global warming impact of trace gases such as CFCs, HFCs,

methane, and nitrous oxide combined is nearly equivalent to the importance of CO2

(Graedel and Crutzen, 1993). However, the California emissions of these trace gases represents

only 14 percent of the global warming impact within the State (U.S. EPA, 1998i). The remaining

global warming impact is due to CO2 . Therefore, CO2 emissions in California have a much

bigger role than trace greenhouse gas emissions with regard to global warming.

For aerosol products to meet the VOC limits in the proposed amendments, manufacturers

may choose to replace some or all the typical hydrocarbon propellents with HFC-152a or 

HFC-134a. These compounds are exempted as VOCs under the Regulation. However,
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 182

HFC-152a is the chief HFC alternative for hydrocarbon propellents in consumer products due to

its significantly lower global warming potential and atmospheric lifetime compared to HFC-134a

(Du Pont, 1992; Applegate, 1995). The global warming potential is the ratio of the warming

caused by a substance to the warming caused by a similar mass of CO2. HFC-152a has no ozone

depletion potential, does not contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, is low in toxicity,

and is only mildly flammable (U.S. EPA, 1999). The primary area of concern for HFC-152a is its

potential to contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions. However, with a global warming

potential roughly 7-9 times less than HFC-134a and an atmospheric lifetime of 

1.5 years, HFC-152a has one of the lowest potentials for global warming among all HFCs. By

comparison, HFC-134a has an atmospheric lifetime of 14.6 years. 

Only one category under consideration for regulation, hair mousses, currently has a

significant number of products containing HFC-152a. Based on the results from the 1997 Survey,

the total emissions of HFC-152a from this category was 0.08 tpd (Survey). Based on a worst

case scenario using the 1997 Survey results, we have estimated that emissions of 

HFC-152a from categories that may use it as a reformulation option, including aerosol furniture

waxes and polishes, double phase aerosol air fresheners, and hair mousses, would be a maximum

of 1.60 tpd. This is equivalent to 0.020 million metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE) per

year. MMTCE takes into account the global warming potential of a greenhouse gas and its

molecular weight relative to CO2, and is therefore a more accurate unit of measure when

comparing various greenhouse gases. The 1996 U.S. emissions of HFCs, perfluorocarbons

(PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF ) from all sources equates to 34.7 MMTCE 6

(U.S. EPA, 1998b). Based on the California proportion of the U.S. population (13 percent), the

emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF in California is estimated at 4.5 MMTCE. Thus, emissions of 6

HFC-152a from categories that can use the propellent as a reformulation option may increase the

California emissions of all HFCs, PFCs and SF6 compounds by 0.5 percent. 

When the contribution of all greenhouse gas emissions are factored in, HFC, PFC and SF6

emissions accounted for only 1.9 percent of the total MMTCE from U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions in 1996 (U.S. EPA, 1998b). Therefore, maximal emissions of HFC-152a due to the

Regulation represent a 0.01 percent increase in global warming potential for California. Other

factors that contribute to the negligible environmental impact of HFC-152a is its short

atmospheric lifetime of 1.5 years, and its relatively high price among propellents. Unlike CFCs

which have atmospheric lifetimes measured in tens to hundreds of years, only small amounts of

HFC-152a would remain in the atmosphere after 1.5 years if all emissions of HFC-152a were

discontinued. In addition, when cost considerations are factored in (HFC-152a is about $1.80 per

pound, versus hydrocarbon propellents at $0.25 per pound), it is anticipated that manufacturers

will use as little HFC-152a as possible, or none at all, when reformulating their aerosol products. 

ARB staff do not expect the price of HFC-152a to change appreciably in the near future. 

Therefore, the anticipated HFC-152a emissions as a result of implementation of the Regulation

will have a negligible impact on global warming.
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 183

Based on discussions with manufacturers, HFC-134a will be used as a propellent

reformulation option in one category considered for regulation, tire sealants and inflators. 

HFC-134a is a nonflammable gas and is a good alternative for HCFC propellents, which are being

phased-out in this category in accordance with U.S. EPA policy (U.S. EPA, 1995a). While other

propellent systems exist for reformulation of tire sealants and inflators, including HFC-152a and

dimethyl ether/water systems, they all have some degree of flammability and may present a

potential explosion hazard. In the absence of this proposed regulation, manufacturers are using

HFC-134a due to liability concerns about potential explosions. Based on a worst case scenario

using the 1997 Survey results, we have estimated that increased emissions of HFC-134a from

products that may use the propellent as a reformulation option to meet the proposed Regulation

would be a maximum of 0.2 tpd. This is equivalent to 0.024 MMTCE per year, which is roughly

equal to the maximal estimated MMTCE from increased emissions of 

HFC-152a from consumer products considered for regulation. Overall, this will represent a 

0.01 percent increase in global warming potential for California. This percentage is likely

overestimated because HFC-134a is replacing HCFC propellents, themselves global warmers, in

some formulations. So until the minimal global warming issue overrides the safety issue,

HFC-134a will remain a reformulation option for tire sealants and inflators. 

 To a limited extent, CO may also replace hydrocarbon propellents in some products. As 2

mentioned above, CO2 is the primary man-made greenhouse gas of concern. The 1997 Survey

data indicate that CO is used in certain consumer products considered for regulation, such as 2

automotive brake cleaners, carburetor and fuel-injection air intake cleaners, engine degreasers,

and general purpose degreasers (Survey). Although CO has found some use as a replacement 2

propellent in these consumer products, it is not considered a likely replacement for hydrocarbon

propellents in other product categories. Therefore, its use in aerosols due to the proposed

Regulation would have a negligible impact on global warming. In addition, most CO2 used as a

propellent is a recycled by-product of existing processes and, therefore, does not increase global

warming (ARB, 1995a).

Impact on Stratospheric Ozone

The ARB staff has determined that the proposed amendments will have no discernable

impact on stratospheric ozone depletion. Stratospheric ozone shields the earth from harmful, high

energy ultraviolet (UV) radiation. CFCs and other hydrocarbons containing chlorine and/or

bromine are the primary substances that cause stratospheric ozone depletion, leading to increased

harmful UV radiation reaching the troposphere (Godish, 1991; U.S. EPA, 1995b). CFCs and

other ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are released from anthropogenic sources, where they can

eventually reach the stratosphere due to their extreme stability. In the stratosphere, incoming high

energy UV radiation release the chlorine and bromine atoms from the ODS molecule. The

chlorine and bromine atoms then act as catalysts in a reaction that destroys stratospheric ozone. 

Increased exposure to harmful UV radiation has been linked to skin cancer, cataracts, damage to

materials such as plastics, and harm to certain crops and marine organisms (U.S. EPA, 1995b). 

Because the reactions which form ground-level ozone are driven by UV radiation, it is
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 184

conceivable that a reduction in stratospheric ozone may also result in an increase in photochemical

smog formation due to the increased UV radiation (ARB, 1995b).

Based on the 1997 Survey, staff is not aware of any ozone-depleting materials other than

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and a few hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) that are used in the

consumer product categories being considered for regulation. These compounds are considered

exempt VOCs under the Regulation. U.S. EPA has classified TCA as a Group V 

ozone-depleting compound, which indicates that TCA has a low ozone-depletion potential

relative to CFCs (U.S. EPA, 1995a). However, according to the Montreal Protocols and the

1990 Federal Clean Air Act amendments, all ozone depleting compounds, including TCA, were

scheduled for production phase-out by 1995. Discussions with manufacturers that reported

consumer products containing TCA in the 1997 Survey indicated that production of formulations

containing TCA were almost entirely phased out in 1995. The TCA use reported in the Survey

represented the sell-through of existing stock containing the compound. Therefore, ARB staff

expect very few consumer products currently being considered for regulation to contain TCA. In

addition, manufacturers do not plan to reformulate with TCA to meet the proposed limits due to

the TCA production phase-out.

Only one category being considered for regulation, tire sealants and inflators, contained

some products that were formulated with HCFCs. In general, the ozone-depletion potential of

HCFCs is less than TCA. However, all HCFCs are included in group II and all are scheduled for

phase-out by U.S. EPA between 2004 and 2030 (U.S. EPA, 1998c ; U.S. EPA, 1995a). Upon

discussion with manufacturers of these products, use of HCFCs has been essentially phased out in

preference for other propellents.

E. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM INCREASED USE OF

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

Background

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39650 et seq., the ARB is required to identify

and control toxic air contaminants (TAC). The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “...an

air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which

may pose a hazard to human health.” A number of chemicals currently used in the consumer

product formulations considered for regulation have been identified as TACs 

(ARB, 1997b; Survey). An increased use of TACs in any of the consumer products considered

for regulation could lead to a potential adverse environmental impact. ARB staff has evaluated

this potential and has concluded that an increased use of TAC’s will not occur as a result of these

regulatory amendments. The basis for this conclusion is explained below.

Solvents commonly used in consumer products that have been identified as TACs, such as

ethylene-based glycol ethers and methyl ethyl ketone, are also VOCs (Survey, ARB, 1997b). This

regulation is designed to reduce the VOC content of consumer products which should lead to a
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 185

reduction in the use of TACs that are also VOCs. This would be a positive environmental impact

of the Regulation. However, two TACs used in some consumer products, methylene chloride

(MeCl) and perchloroethylene (PCE), are specifically exempted from the VOC definition (section

94508 of the Regulation) in recognition of their very low ozone-forming capability. This also

provided needed conformity with the federal VOC definition 

(U.S. EPA, 1998a). Below, we provide some general information about MeCl and PCE, and

discuss why staff believes that the proposed amendments will not result in any increased use of

these compounds. 

Methylene Chloride (MeCl)

MeCl, also known as dichloromethane, is a volatile, nonflammable, colorless liquid with a

sweetish chloroform-like odor (ARB, 1997b). MeCl is used in some aerosol consumer products,

including some of the automotive products covered by the proposed amendments. However,

paint removers and strippers account for the largest use of MeCl in California. Based primarily on

toxicology studies in experimental animals, MeCl was formally identified as a toxic air

contaminant in 1989 (ARB, 1989). In 1990, U.S. EPA designated MeCl as a hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) pursuant to section 112(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act because it was known to

have, or possibly have, adverse effects on human health or the environment.

Health Effects

The major routes of human exposure to MeCl are inhalation, which can be high near

sources of emissions, and ingestion from contaminated water (U.S. EPA, 1998d). Acute

exposure to MeCl can cause central nervous system depression and gastrointestinal upset. 

Symptoms at low to moderate concentrations include dizziness, incoordination, impaired vision,

headache, and nausea. At very high concentrations, pulmonary edema, cardiac arrhythmias, and

loss of consciousness can occur (U.S. NTP, 1991; ARB, 1997b). MeCl is also a mild irritant to

the nose, throat, and eyes. Chronic non-cancer effects include bone marrow, hepatic, and renal

toxicity (ARB, 1997b). The acute non-cancer Reference Exposure Level (REL) is

1.4 x 10 μg/m for an average exposure time of 1 hour (OEHHA, 1999a). A chronic non-cancer 4 3

REL of 3.0 x 10 μg/m has been developed under the California Air Pollution Control Officers 3 3

Association Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program (CAPCOA, 1993). 

Inhalation of MeCl has been shown to increase liver and lung cancer and benign mammary

gland tumors in animal studies (U.S. EPA, 1998e). However, there was inadequate human

evidence of carcinogenicity. Thus, MeCl was declared a B2 substance, probable human

carcinogen, by U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 1998e). An inhalation potency factor of 1 x 10 (μg/m ) is -6 3 -1

used as the basis for regulatory action in California (OEHHA, 1999b). This number estimates that

the potential excess cancer risk for a person exposed over a lifetime to 1 μg/m of MeCl is no 3

greater than one in a million. Lifetime exposure of laboratory animals to MeCl in their drinking

water caused a significant increase in liver cancer (U.S. EPA, 1998e). 
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 186

Because additional scientific data clearly showed that the established OSHA permissible

exposure limit (PEL) of 500 ppm (8-hour time-weighted average) was inadequate to protect

workers, OSHA adopted a revised PEL of 25 ppm in 1997 to protect worker health (OSHA, 1997).

Perchloroethylene (PCE)

PCE, also known as tetrachloroethylene, is a non-flammable, colorless, dense liquid with

an ether-like odor (ARB, 1997b). PCE is used primarily in the dry cleaning and textile industry,

as a chemical intermediate in the production of other chemicals, and as an industrial degreaser for

metals (U.S. EPA, 1998f). PCE is found in consumer products such as auto brake cleaners,

which are subject to our proposed amendments (U.S. EPA, 1996b). Based on toxicology studies

in experimental animals and its wide use, U.S. EPA designated PCE as a HAP pursuant to section

112(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act in 1990 (ARB, 1993). In 1991, the State of California

formally identified PCE as a TAC (ARB, 1991b). 

Health Effects

The most common routes of exposure are inhalation and dermal contact (NTP, 1999). 

Acute effects due to inhalation of high levels of PCE include intense irritation of upper respiratory

tract and eyes, kidney dysfunction, and neurological effects such as reversible mood and

behavioral changes, impairment of coordination, and anesthetic effects (U.S. EPA, 1996b). 

Chronic exposure to PCE can result in liver toxicity, kidney dysfunction, cardiac arrhythmia, and

neurological effects, including headaches, and impairment of memory, concentration, and

intellectual function (U.S. EPA, 1996b). The U.S. EPA established an oral Reference Dose (RfD)

for PCE of 0.01 mg/kg/day based on hepatotoxicity in mice and weight loss in rats (U.S. EPA,

1998g). The acute non-cancer REL is 2 x 10 μg/m for an average exposure time of 1 hour 4 3

(OEHHA, 1999a). A chronic non-cancer REL of 35 μg/m has been used in the California Air 3

Pollution Control Officers Association Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program (CAPCOA, 1993), and

was approved by the Scientific Review Panel during the TAC identification process (ARB,

1991b). 

Long-term inhalation exposure to PCE by experimental rodent species resulted in an

increase of liver and kidney tumors and mononuclear cell leukemia (ARB, 1997b). Long-term

oral exposure of mice to PCE resulted in liver tumors. However, there was inadequate human

evidence of carcinogenicity. Thus, PCE was declared a B2/C substance, probable human

carcinogen, by U.S. EPA (ARB, 1997b). An inhalation potency factor of 5.9 x 10 (μg/m ) is -6 3 -1

used as the basis for regulatory action in California (OEHHA, 1999b). The oral potency factor

used as the basis for regulatory action in California is 5.1 x 10 (mg/kg/day) (OEHHA, 1999b). -2 -1

Potential for Increased Use of PCE and MeCl

Because both PCE and MeCl are TACs that have been exempted from the VOC definition in

the Regulation, manufacturers have the option to reformulate with these compounds, or increase
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 187

their use in currently marketed products, to meet the proposed VOC limits. However, we believe

manufacturers will not rely on MeCl or PCE to reformulate their products. The reasons are: 

1) every VOC limit proposed by the ARB staff was intentionally set at a level that would be

achievable without the increased use of either PCE or MeCl; 2) manufacturers will be discouraged

from reformulating products with PCE or MeCl, or any other TAC, by the need for additional

labeling under Proposition 65 (Prop 65); 3) corporate policies exist that prevent the use of TACs due

to health and safety concerns; and 4) there are low permissible exposure limits set by OSHA. For

these reasons, we do not believe that the regulatory amendments will result in any increased use of

these compounds.

The ARB has been tracking the use of PCE in regulated consumer products since 1996 to

ensure increased use does not occur. Proposed amendments to the current reporting requirements

will require manufacturers to report both PCE and MeCl use. The reporting requirements would

extend 6 years beyond the final implementation date of the proposed limits to 2010. This will ensure

that new technology and reformulation developments that may include MeCl or PCE are not

overlooked following implementation of the last proposed VOC limits in 2004. Of the 17 consumer

product categories currently considered for regulation, MeCl and/or PCE is/are used extensively only

in brake cleaners (Survey). However, some categories, including carburetor or fuel-injection air

intake cleaners, engine degreasers, general purpose degreasers, and tire sealants and inflators contain

some products with one or both TACs (Survey). The ARB is currently evaluating an Airborne

Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) that would limit the use of chlorinated compounds such as PCE

and MeCl in automotive products. Below is a discussion of reformulation options for each product

category considered for regulation that have products containing PCE and/or MeCl.

Automotive Brake Cleaners

Currently, automotive brake cleaners can be divided into two distinct groups: the chlorinated

brake cleaners, which contain PCE and/or MeCl, and the nonchlorinated brake cleaners, which

contain exempt and non-exempt VOC solvents. The chlorinated brake cleaners are nonflammable

but have toxicity and waste disposal issues, while the nonchlorinated brake cleaners have relatively

minor toxicity issues but are usually flammable. The proposal would drop the VOC limit for this

category from 50 percent to 45 percent. As discussed in Chapter VI, manufacturers of

nonchlorinated brake cleaners have endorsed this proposed limit and plan to meet it primarily by

adding more acetone, an exempt VOC. In addition, nearly all of the chlorinated brake cleaner

products already meet the proposed limit so there is no reason to assume this subcategory of brake

cleaners will use more PCE and/or MeCl. Because the proposed VOC limit is relatively close to the

current limit, it is not anticipated that this amendment will cause increased use of chlorinated brake

cleaners over the non-chlorinated brake cleaners. Also, the recent downward revision of the OSHA

PEL (OSHA, 1997) for MeCl will likely prevent the increased use of MeCl in automotive brake

cleaners. 

Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake Cleaners

Most of the products in this category are aerosols and are regulated by U.S. EPA as fuel

additives. While some of the aerosols currently contain either PCE or MeCl, U.S. EPA no longer

registers fuel additives that contain chlorinated hydrocarbons (U.S. EPA, 1998h). The existing
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 188

carburetor or fuel-injection air intake cleaners that contained PCE or MeCl prior to the ban on

chlorinated hydrocarbons will not have to reformulate if they already meet the proposed VOC limit. 

However, any reformulation change in these products will be allowed only with complete removal of

all chlorinated hydrocarbons in the formulation. The liquid carburetor or fuel-injection air intake

cleaners are not subject to this ban, but there are relatively few of these products and the majority do

not contain PCE or MeCl. Due primarily to the additional labeling requirements and toxics issues,

we do not expect manufacturers to reformulate the liquid form of these products with PCE or MeCl.

General Purpose Degreasers

Amendments to the Regulation will include solvent parts cleaners under the general purpose

degreaser category. Prior to this category consolidation, the general purpose degreasers contained a

small number of products that were formulated with PCE and/or MeCl. The general purpose

degreasers with PCE and/or MeCl have specific uses in industrial applications and are exempt from

the Regulation. The remainder of the general purpose degreasers are for household use and are not

anticipated to reformulate using TACs such as PCE and MeCl. However, some of the solvent parts

cleaners contain MeCl and/or PCE. Nearly all these TAC-containing products already meet the

proposed VOC limits. For the non-TAC-containing solvent parts cleaners, it is expected that

reformulation will be similar to general purpose degreasers that are already compliant without the

use of TACs.

Tire Sealants and Inflators

Currently, PCE is used in some tire sealant and inflator formulations. Based on

conversations with manufacturers, MeCl may also become a reformulation option. Because

flammability is such a critical issue in this category, the use of the nonflammable solvents PCE and

MeCl would have played a role in reformulation whether or not we developed VOC limits for tire

sealants and inflators. Therefore, our proposed VOC limits are expected to have little or no effect

on the use of TACs in this category.

Summary

Overall, ARB staff anticipates that the amendments to the Regulation will have a positive

environmental impact by reducing the amount of TACs that are VOCs. The amendments to the

Regulation are designed to reduce the VOC content of consumer products. It is likely that a

reduction of TACs would also occur because most TACs are also VOCs. In addition, ARB staff

anticipates that use of exempt VOCs that are TACs should not increase as a result of the proposed

amendments. MeCl and PCE are TACs that were specifically exempted from the VOC definition in

recognition of their very low ozone-forming capability and to provide conformity with the federal

VOC definition. For the reasons discussed in this Initial Statement of Reasons, we do not anticipate

that the proposed amendments would lead to increased use of MeCl and PCE as consumer products

are reformulating to the VOC limits. ARB staff intentionally proposed VOC limits that are

achievable without an increased use of TACs. In addition, the Proposition 65 labeling requirements

dissuade manufacturers from reformulating consumer products with TACs. Long lead times before

the limits become effective should also provide manufacturers time to investigate reformulation

options that do not include TAC usage. 
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 189

Currently, the ARB tracks the use of PCE in all regulated consumer products through

manufacturer reporting requirements. Proposed amendments to the Regulation will require

manufacturers to report usage of all regulated products that contain PCE or MeCl. In the event that

the available data indicate an increase in PCE or MeCl usage, additional measures would be taken or

the proposed limits would be reevaluated. Also, the ARB is currently evaluating an ATCM that may

limit the use of PCE and MeCl in automotive products.

F. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Impacts on Water Quality and Solid Waste Disposal

We do not expect an adverse impact on water quality or solid waste disposal from the

proposed amendments to the Regulation. The Regulation is designed so that all current product

forms will be available. Because of this, we do not anticipate any changes in packaging or disposal

due to the Regulation. With regard to water quality, the yearly reporting requirement for PCE use

(see Section E above) is available for inspection by publicly-owned treatment works authorities, if

they suspect that increased PCE in wastewater is related to household disposal of PCE-containing

consumer products to sewers. Under the proposed amendments, reporting requirements will be

extended to all regulated products that contain PCE and/or MeCl. Mitigation measures will be

implemented by the ARB if a significant presence of consumer product-related PCE is detected in

wastewater.

G. IMPACTS ON THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR OZONE

Background

The Federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 require an ozone attainment plan from every

state unable to meet the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. California’s 

1994 SIP for ozone fulfills this requirement (ARB, 1994b). State law provides the legal authority to

ARB to develop regulations affecting a variety of mobile sources, fuels, and consumer products. 

The regulations that are already adopted, and measures proposed for adoption constitute the ARB’s

portion of the SIP. The SIP serves as a “road map” to guide California to attain and maintain the

national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The SIP was submitted to the U.S. EPA on

November 15, 1994, and the consumer products element was formally approved on

August 21, 1995.

The consumer products element of the SIP is comprised of near-term, mid-term, and longterm measures. The near-term measures are comprised of the antiperspirant and deodorant

regulation, the “Phase I and II” consumer product regulations, and the aerosol coatings regulation. 

Of the 265 tpd (including aerosol paints) available for regulation from this category, the near-term

measures are designed to achieve a 30 percent reduction from the 1990 baseline emissions, by 2000. 

Our commitment regarding the mid-term measures is to achieve an additional 25 percent reduction

from the 1990 baseline, by 2005. The Mid-term Measures, or Phase III amendments to the

consumer products regulation, partially fulfilled this commitment under the current SIP. The 

long-term measures will rely on new technologies, market incentives and consumer education to

achieve an additional emission reduction of 30 percent from the 1990 baseline emissions by 2010
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 190

(ARB, 1994b). However, following the comprehensive SIP update in 2000-2001, the emission

reduction commitment for the long-term measures may be reduced.

Mid-term Measures II

In 1997, an environmental group filed a complaint with the U. S. District Court against the

ARB, SCAQMD, and U. S. EPA related to California’s progress in meeting the 1994

commitments. A supplemental complaint was filed in 1998 to include the shortfall in achieving

the mid-term measures commitment in the SIP. Under the terms of a settlement agreement

reached in 1998, ARB must adopt measures in 1999 that will achieve a 12 tpd reduction of ROG

in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in 2010 (in “1994 SIP currency” as discussed in

Chapter IV). Also under the agreement, the ARB must adopt measures to achieve a total of 

42 tpd of ROG reductions in the SCAB in 2010. Overall, the ROG emission reductions from the

Mid-term Measures II consumer product categories will be about 11 tpd (9 tpd in 1994 SIP

currency) in the SCAB in 2010. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Regulation will help

achieve most of the emissions reductions committed to in the SIP lawsuit agreement. In addition,

the amendments to the Regulation will also assist in fulfilling the ARB’s mid-term measures SIP

commitments. For more information on the SIP lawsuit agreement, see Chapter I.

Summary of Findings

We believe that the mid-term measures II proposal will achieve the maximum reduction in

VOC emissions that is technologically and commercially feasible at this time from the categories

proposed for regulation. However, as stated above, the aerosol coatings regulation, mid-term

measures and the proposed mid-term measures II regulations do not completely fulfill the

consumer products commitments in the 1994 SIP.

Table VII-2 presents the 1994 SIP commitments for the mid-term measures and aerosol

coatings, which are combined in the SIP. As shown in the table, the combined emission

reductions from the mid-term measures, the aerosol coatings regulation, and the proposed 

mid-term measures II achieve the emission reduction commitment for 2002. However, the

emission reduction commitments for 2005 and 2010 are not achieved. This table does not include

the long-term consumer products commitment, which we will re-assess in the next comprehensive

SIP revision. We expect to obtain the necessary emission reductions from alternative measures in

time to demonstrate that rate-of-progress and attainment requirements will still be met.
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 191

TABLE VII-2

Mid-term Measures and Aerosol Coatings Reduction Requirements

SIP Reductions for 2002 (tons per day)

 South Coast Sacramento SE Desert Ventura

SIP Commitment

aerosol coatings 8 1.1 .6 .4

& mid-term 

Current Proposal

aerosol coatings 5.4 .8 .5 .3

mid-term I 3.1 .4 .3 .2

Total 8.5 1.2 .8 .5

SIP Reductions for 2005 (tons per day)

 South Coast Sacramento SE Desert Ventura

SIP Commitment

aerosol coatings 39.2 5.6 3.5 2.2

& mid-term 

Current Proposal

aerosol coatings 5.4 .8 .5 .3

mid-term I 7.2 1.0 .7 .4

mid-term II 8.3 1.2 .8 .5

Total 20.9 3.0 2.0 1.2

SIP Reductions for 2010 (tons per day)

 South Coast

SIP Commitment

aerosol coatings 43.2

& mid-term 

Current Proposal

aerosol coatings 5.4

mid-term I 7.8

mid-term II 9.0

Total 22.2

(21 tpd shortfall in South Coast)
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 192

A complete update to the SIP inventory for consumer products will be incorporated in the

next comprehensive revision to the statewide control strategies in the SIP. The results from the

1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey and the 1997 Aerosol Coatings Survey will be

used to update the SIP inventory in 2000-2001. The up-to-date consumer product inventory will

be used as a basis for re-evaluating our consumer product SIP commitments.

REFERENCES

Air Resources Board, Staff Report, Proposed Identification of Methylene Chloride as a Toxic Air

Contaminant, May 1989. (ARB, 1989)

Air Resources Board, Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase II, 

October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)

Air Resources Board, Staff Report/Executive Summary, Proposed Identification of

Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant, August 1991. (ARB, 1991b)

Air Resources Board, The Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as Toxic Air

Contaminants, June 1993. (ARB, 1993)

Air Resources Board, Proposed Alternative Control Plan Regulation for Consumer Products,

August, 1994. (ARB, 1994a)

Air Resources Board. The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume II,

November 15, 1994. (ARB, 1994b)

Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to

the California Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coatings, August 11, 1995. 

(ARB, 1995a)

Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products and

Amendments to the Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products, February 3, 1995. 

(ARB, 1995b)

Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California

Consumer Products Regulation, June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997)

Air Resources Board, Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List Summaries, September, 1997. 

(ARB, 1997b)
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 193

Air Resources Board, Preliminary Draft 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey:

Summary of Sales and Emissions (as of 3/4/99), March, 1999. (Survey)

Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coatings,

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products, October, 1998. (ARB, 1998)

Applegate, Lynn E., Spray Technology & Marketing, HFC-152a: A Valuable Propellant for the

Reduction of Volatile Organic Compounds, Pages 44-46, April 1995. (Applegate, 1995).

Bergin, Michelle, S., Russell, A.G., Carter, W.P.L., Croes, B.E., and Seinfeld, J.H., Ozone

Control and VOC Reactivity, J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., Encyclopedia of Environmental Analysis

and Remediation, 1998, pp. 3355-3383. (Bergin et al., 1998)

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CAPCOA Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Program,

October, 1993. (CAPCOA, 1993)

Carter, William P.L., Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Volume 44,

Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic Compounds, Pages 881-899, 

July 1994. (Carter, 1994)

Du Pont, Dymel Update, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 1992. (Du Pont, 1992)

Godish, Thad, Air Quality, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, 1991. (Godish, 1991)

Graedel, T.E., and Crutzen, Paul, J., Atmospheric Change: an Earth System Perspective, 

W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1993. (Graedel and Crutzen, 1993)

Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration, Occupational Exposure to Methylene Chloride:

Final Rule, January 10, 1997, http://www.osha-slc.gov/FedReg_osha_data/FED19970110.html. 

(OSHA, 1997)

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Adoption of Acute Reference Exposure

Levels for Airborne Toxicants, memorandum from Joan E. Denton, April 1, 1999. 

(OEHHA, 1999a)

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Adoption of Cancer Potency Factors for

Airborne Toxicants, memorandum from Joan E. Denton, April 13, 1999. (OEHHA, 1999b)

Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), Health and Safety

Code Sections 25249.5-25249.13. (Prop 65)
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 194

Seinfeld, John H., and Pandis, Spyros N., Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, John Wiley &

Sons, New York, 1998. (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Ozone Depleting Substances.” Last modified

on October 12, 1995, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods.html. (U.S. EPA, 1995a)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “The Ozone Depletion Process.” Last updated

on July 20, 1995, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/process.html. (U.S. EPA, 1995b)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “PR EPA Proposes Air Standards for Particulate

Matter and Ozone.” November 27, 1996, (U.S. EPA, 1996a)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)”, Last

updated October 11, 1996, wysiwyg://22http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/hlthef/tet-ethy.html. (U.S.

EPA, 1996b)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Particulate Matter; Final Rule, Federal Register, July 18, 1997, Volume 62, Number 138. 

(U.S. EPA, 1997a)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Health and Environmental Effects of 

Ground-Level Ozone.” July 17, 1997, http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/naaqsfin/o3health.htm. 

(U.S. EPA, 1997b).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Consumer Products, Federal Register, September 11, 1998, Volume 63, 

Number 176, Rules and Regulations, 48819-48847. (U.S. EPA, 1998a)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas

Emissions”, 1998, http://www.epa.gov/oppeoee1/globalwarming/inventory/

1998-inv/trends.html. (U.S. EPA, 1998b)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “HCFC Phaseout Schedule.”, Last updated on

June 17, 1998, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html. (U.S. EPA, 1998c)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations -

Technical Factsheet on: Dichloromethane”, Revised January 27, 1998,

http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-voc/dichloro.html. (U.S.EPA, 1998d)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Integrated Risk Information System Substance

File - Dichloromethane”, Last updated May 5, 1998, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0070.htm. 

(U.S. EPA, 1998e)
Volume II, Chapter VII, Page 195

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations -

Technical Factsheet on: Tetrachloroethylene”, Revised December 23, 1998,

http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-voc/tetrachl.html. (U.S. EPA, 1998f)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Integrated Risk Information System Substance

File - Tetrachloroethylene”, Last updated May 5, 1998, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0106.htm. 

(U.S. EPA, 1998g) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives,

Federal Register, July 1, 1998, Title 40, Volume 10, Part 79. (U.S. EPA, 1998h)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and Sinks: 1990-1996. (U.S. EPA, 1998i)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “SNAP Subsequent Final Rule 5", Last updated

on March 3, 1999, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/612frm6.html. (U.S. EPA, 1999)

United States National Toxicology Program, “NTP Chemical Repository: Methylene Chloride”,

August 29, 1991, http://ntp-db.niehs.nih.gov/NTP_Re...em_H&S/NTP_Chem7/

Radian75-09-2.txt. (U.S. NTP, 1991)

United States National Toxicology Program, “Eighth Report on Carcinogens:

Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)”, 1999,

http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/ht...8_RoC/RAC/Tetrachloroethylene.html. (NTP, 1999)
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 196

VIII.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the estimated economic impacts we anticipate from implementation

of the 21 proposed new limits. In general, economic impact analyses are inherently imprecise by

nature, especially given the unpredictable behavior of companies in a highly competitive market

such as consumer products. While we quantified the economic impacts to the extent feasible,

some projections are necessarily qualitative and based on general observations and facts known

about the consumer products industry. This impacts analysis, therefore, serves to provide a

general picture of the economic impacts typical businesses subject to the proposed limits might

encounter; we recognize individual companies may experience different impacts than projected.

The overall impacts are first summarized, followed by a more detailed discussion of

specific aspects of the economic impacts in the sections listed below:

(B) Economic Impacts Analysis on California Businesses as required by the

California Administrative Procedure Act (APA);

(C) Analysis of Potential Impacts to California State or Local Agencies;

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

(E) Analysis of the Impacts to Raw Materials Cost; 

(F) Analysis of the Combined Impacts on Per-Unit Cost from Recurring and

Nonrecurring Costs; and

(G) Mitigation of Potential Impacts through Additional Regulatory Flexibility.

It is important to note that we conducted the economic impacts analysis shown in this

report to meet the current legal requirements under the APA. The analysis uses essentially the

same methodology and assumption used in the last major consumer products rulemaking, the

“Mid-Term Measures” regulation adopted by the Board in 1997. The analysis, both here and in

the 1997 rulemaking, represents a significant update to and expansion of the methodology we

used to conduct the cost-effectiveness analyses for the original Phase I-II consumer products

rulemaking (ARB, 1990; ARB, 1991).

The economic impacts analysis was prepared in consultation with ARB’s Economic

Studies Section (section) of the Research Division. The section is staffed with professionals who

carry out a broad range of assignments for the ARB and other organizations, including the

Governor’s Office; Cal/EPA boards, offices and departments; and local air pollution control

agencies. The section manages extramural research contracts; develops methodologies; collects,

analyzes and distributes economic and financial data; conducts economic and financial analyses,

including the economic impact analyses of the Board’s regulations; oversees the economic impact

analyses of the regulations promulgated by all Cal/EPA boards, offices and departments; and
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 197

carries out other related tasks as needed by the ARB. The staff hold Ph.D, J.D., M.B.A., M.A.,

and B.S. degrees in economics, business, chemical engineering, microbiology, and environmental

resource science. Members of the section have taught economics, accounting, finance, and

computer science at the university level; have given invited talks and presented technical papers to

major universities, academic associations, and government agencies; and have worked in the

private sector in credit analysis, accounting, auditing, production control, environmental

consulting, and business law.

Summary of Findings

Overall, most affected businesses will be able to absorb the costs of the proposed 

limits and requirements with no significant adverse impacts on their profitability. This finding is

indicated by the staff’s estimated change in “return on owner’s equity” (ROE) analysis. The

analysis found that the overall change in ROE ranges from negligible to a decline in ROE of about

4 percent, with an average change in ROE of about 1.4 percent. However, the proposed

measures may impose economic hardship on some businesses with small or no margin of

profitability. These businesses, if hard pressed, can seek relief under the variance provision of the

consumer products regulation for extensions to their compliance dates. Such extensions may

provide sufficient time to minimize the cost impacts to these businesses. Because the proposed

measures would not alter significantly the profitability of most businesses, we do not expect a

noticeable change in employment; business creation, elimination or expansion; and business

competitiveness in California. We also found no significant adverse economic impacts to any

local or State agencies.

Our analysis shows that the cost-effectiveness of the proposed requirements is similar to

the cost-effectiveness of the existing consumer product regulations (Phase I-II and the first 

Mid-Term Measures), as well as other existing ARB regulatory programs. We estimate the

individual cost-effectiveness of the proposed limits, with each limit effectively considered as a

separate and standalone regulation, range from no cost (net savings or no cost) to about $6.30 per

pound of VOC reduced (in 1999 dollars). These ranges are comparable in magnitude to those

reported for other ARB consumer product regulations and measures, which generally have fallen

within an overall range of no cost to about $7.10 per pound of VOC reduced.

While determining the maxima and minima cost-effectiveness values is useful for

establishing boundaries, it is also useful to determine the average cost-effectiveness of the 

proposed limits. To this end, an estimate of the average cost-effectiveness as an emissions

reduction-weighted value provides more insight into the overall cost-effectiveness of the limits

than a simple arithmetic mean of the calculated individual values. Unlike a simple arithmetic

mean, a weighted average accounts for the relative efficiency as well as the relative magnitude of

the emission reductions for each limit. Overall, the emission reductions-weighted average

(ERWA) cost-effectiveness for the proposed limits is about $0.40 per pound of VOC reduced. 

That is, the average cost to reduce one pound of VOCs averaged across all the categories subject

to the proposed new limits is less than half a dollar. This estimated average cost-effectiveness
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 198

compares favorably with the cost-effectiveness of the ARB programs mentioned previously.

One way to project the potential change in product prices is to determine the potential

change in raw materials cost, which generally has the biggest influence on product cost for most

product categories. Our analysis indicates that reformulations to comply with the proposed limits

can result in raw material changes ranging from negligible cost (net savings or no cost) up to a

cost increase of about $0.25 per unit. Again, this range compares favorably to the change in per

unit cost projected for the Phase I-II and Mid-Term Measures regulations. The analysis assumed

the present cost for raw materials; depending on the formulations chosen by manufacturers and

the future price of raw materials, this range may be lower or higher at the actual compliance dates. 

To the extent that the projected cost savings or increases are ultimately passed on to the

consumer, the actual retail price of products after the proposed limits become effective may be

higher or lower than suggested by this analysis.

Even if all annualized nonrecurring costs (research and development, capital equipment

purchases, etc.) and recurring raw material cost increases are factored into the affected products

manufacturing costs, the potential increase in production per-unit costs are comparable to

previous ARB consumer product rulemakings. The estimated per-unit cost increases from both

annualized nonrecurring and annual recurring costs range from negligible cost (net savings or no

cost) to about $0.30 per unit. When averaged over the total number of unit sales in California of

regulated products, the unit sales-weighted average cost increase is about $0.02 per unit. As

noted before, these per unit cost increases compare favorably to the change in per unit cost

projected for previous ARB consumer product rulemakings.

B. ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSIS ON CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES AS

REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

(APA)

Legal Requirements

Section 11346.3 of the Government Code requires State agencies to assess the potential

for adverse economic impacts on California business enterprises and individuals when proposing

to adopt or amend any administrative regulation. The assessment shall include a consideration of

the impact of the proposed regulation on California jobs, business expansion, elimination or

creation, and the ability of California business to compete with businesses in other states.

Also, State agencies are required to estimate the cost or savings to any state or local

agency and school district in accordance with instructions adopted by the Department of Finance. 

The estimate shall include any nondiscretionary cost or savings to local agencies and the cost or

savings in federal funding to the State.

Findings
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 199

Potential Impact on California Businesses - Overall, most affected businesses will be

able to absorb the costs of the proposed measures with no significant adverse impacts on their

profitability. However, the proposed measures may impose economic hardship on some

businesses with small or no margin of profitability. These businesses, if hard pressed, can seek

relief under the variance provision of the consumer products regulation for extensions to their

compliance dates. Such extensions may provide sufficient time to minimize the cost impacts to

these businesses. Additional mitigation may be achieved by taking advantage of the compliance

flexibility offered by the existing Innovative Products Provision and the Alternative Control Plan

(ACP) regulation (see section G of this chapter). Because the proposed measures would not alter

significantly the profitability of most businesses, we do not expect a noticeable change in

employment; business creation, elimination or expansion; and business competitiveness in

California. 

 

Discussion

This portion of the economic impacts analysis is based on a comparison of the return on

owners’ equity (ROE) for affected businesses before and after inclusion of the cost to comply

with the proposed requirements. The data used in this analysis are obtained from publicly

available sources, the ARB’s 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (Survey), and the

staff’s cost-effectiveness analysis discussed later in this chapter.

Affected Businesses

Any business which manufactures or markets consumer products subject to the proposed

new limits and requirements can be directly affected. Also potentially affected are businesses

which supply raw materials or equipment to these manufacturers or marketers and distribute or

retail consumer products. The focus of this analysis, however, will be on manufacturers or

marketers because these businesses would be directly affected by the proposed measures. 

The consumer products subject to the proposed measures are manufactured or marketed

by a large number of companies worldwide. According to the ARB’s Consumer Products

Registration Database, there are over 160 manufacturers or marketers which market the affected

products in California. These companies manufacture and market a broad range of automotive,

household, and personal care products and pesticides, including an estimated total of 1,464

complying and 1,279 noncomplying products (based on reported figures and adjusted for possible

survey underreporting). Of these manufacturers or marketers, about 50 firms 

(mostly medium- or small-sized firms) are located in California.

These 50 California companies fall primarily into five standard industrial classifications

(SICs). A list of these industries which we have been able to identify is provided in 

Table VIII-1. The industry with the most noncomplying products is specialty cleaning, polishing

and sanitation preparation (SIC 2842); soap and detergents (SIC 2841); pesticides and

agricultural chemicals (SIC 2879); perfume, cosmetics and other toilet preparation (SIC 2844);
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 200

and adhesives and sealants (SIC 2891).

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

SIC* Product Noncompliant

Industry Number of Number of

Categories Products

2841 Soap and Other Detergents, Except Specialty 7 525

Cleaners

2842 Speciality Cleaners, Polishing, and Sanitation 8 326

Preparations

2844 Perfume, Cosmetics and Other Toilet Preparations 1 118

2879 Agricultural Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified 3 124

2891 Adhesives and Sealants 3 187

* SIC 2841 includes product category codes 2202, 2203, 2208, 5202, 5204 

 SIC 2842 includes product category codes 2204, 5203, 5405, 5602, 6503

 SIC 2844 includes product category code 6402

 SIC 2879 includes product category codes 4302, 4304, 4305

 SIC 2891 includes product category codes 1104, 1201, 2206

Study Approach

This study covers 5 industries with at least 160 affected businesses. The approach used in

evaluating the potential economic impact of the proposed measures on these businesses is outlined

as follows:

(1) Affected businesses which responded to the Survey were classified by the size of

their sales in each industry in order to select a typical business for each industry.

(2) Compliance cost was estimated for each of these businesses.

(3) Estimated cost was adjusted for federal and state taxes.

(4) The three-year average ROE was calculated for each of these businesses by

averaging their ROEs for 1996 through 1998. ROE is calculated by dividing the

net profit by the net worth. The adjusted cost was then subtracted from net profit

data. The results were used to calculate an adjusted three-year average ROE. The

adjusted ROE was then compared with the ROE before the subtraction of the

adjusted cost to determine the potential impact on the profitability of the business. 

A reduction of more than 10 percent in profitability is considered to indicate a

potential for significant adverse economic impacts.
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 201

The threshold value of 10 percent has been used consistently by the ARB staff to

determine impact severity (ARB, 1990; ARB, 1991; ARB, 1995; ARB, 1997). This threshold is

consistent with the thresholds used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and

others.

Assumptions

The ROEs before and after the subtraction of the adjusted compliance costs were

calculated for a typical business in each industry listed in Table VIII-1 using financial data for

1996 through 1998. The calculations were based on the following assumptions:

(1) A typical business on a nationwide basis in each industry is representative of a

typical California business in that industry;

(2) All affected businesses were subject to federal and state tax rates of 35 percent and

8.835 percent respectively; and

(3) Affected businesses are not able to increase the prices of their products, nor can

they lower their costs of doing business through short-term cost-cutting measures.

Given the limitation of available data, staff believes these assumptions are reasonable for

most businesses at least in the short run; however, they may not be applicable to all businesses.

Results

Typical California businesses are affected by the proposed new limits to the extent that the

implementation of these requirements would change their profitability. Based on our assessment

of the proposed limits’ cost-effectiveness (see Section D of this Chapter), we estimate the perbusiness compliance costs to range from $2,600 (low cost for typical non-aerosol engine

degreaser manufacturer) to about $326,000 per year (high cost for typical aerosol crawling bug

insecticide manufacturer), as shown in Table VIII-2.
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 202

INSERT Table VIII-2 here
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 203

Using ROE to measure profitability, we found that the average ROE of sample businesses

in affected industries declined by about 1.37 percent as shown in Table VIII-3. This represents a

minor change in the average profitability of typical businesses in California.

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

Affected Industries

SIC* Industry )ROE

2841 Soap and Other Detergents, Except Specialty Cleaners 4.07%

2842 Speciality Cleaners, Polishing, and Sanitation Preparations 0.18%

2844 Perfume, Cosmetics and Other Toilet Preparations 0.32%

2879 Agricultural Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified 1.32%

2891 Adhesives and Sealants 0.98%

Average 1.37%

Note: “)” means change or difference; all )ROEs shown are negative 

(i.e., shows a decline in profitability).

As shown in Table VIII-3, the projected change in profitability of typical businesses in the

five affected industries varied widely. Within the SICs shown, the predicted change (decline) in

profitability of a typical business ranged from a high of about 4.07 percent to a low of 

0.18 percent. This variation in the impact of the proposed measures can be attributed mainly to

two factors. First, some businesses incur higher costs due to the type of products or the number

of noncompliant products they manufacture or market. For instance, the estimated annualized

costs for sample businesses ranged from a high of about $326,000 to a low of about $2,600. 

Second, the performance of businesses may differ from year to year. Hence, the average 1996

through 1998 financial data used may not be representative of an average-year performance for

some businesses. 

The estimated potential impacts to businesses’ ROEs may be high for the following

reasons. First, annualized costs of compliance are estimated using, in part, the current prices of

raw materials. Raw material prices usually tend to fall as higher demand for these materials

induces economy of scale production in the long run. Second, affected businesses probably would

not absorb all of the increase in their costs of doing business. They might be able to either pass

some of the cost on to consumers in the form of higher prices, reduce their costs, or do both.

Potential Impact on Consumer - The potential impact of the proposed measures on

consumers depends upon the ability of affected businesses to pass on the cost increases to

consumers. In the short run, competitive market forces may prevent businesses from passing their

cost increases on to consumers. Thus, we do not expect a significant change in retail prices in the

short run. In the long run, however, if businesses are unable to bring down their costs of doing

business they would pass their cost increases on to consumers.
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 204

If we assume manufacturers will pass all compliance costs directly on to consumers, we

can estimate the price increase using at least two methods. One is a macroeconomic projection, in

which we express the price increase due to the total compliance cost to industry being passed on

as a percent increase relative to the existing shipment value of the products that will be subject to

the new limits. Under this analysis, we estimate a maximum increase of less than 

0.03 percent in product prices. Price increases, however, would vary from industry to industry. 

They would range from a low of about 0.005 percent in the toilet preparation industry to a high of

about 0.05 percent in the agricultural chemical industry.

On the other hand, we can also conduct a microeconomic analysis, in which we assume all

increases in raw material costs are passed on to the consumer. Under this analysis, we found that

the change in per-unit raw materials cost may range from no change (no cost or cost savings) to a

cost increase of up to about $0.30 per unit. It should be noted that this range may be lower under

actual implementation of the proposed limits, depending on the reformulation and marketing

strategies adopted by the manufacturers and actual market prices of the product ingredients at the

compliance dates. 

The proposed measures may also affect consumers adversely if they result in reduced

performance attributes of the products. However, this scenario is unlikely to occur for the

following reasons. First, for nearly every proposed limit, there are already complying products in

the market that have acceptable performance attributes; indeed, complying products represent

significant shares in many of their respective categories. Thus, the industry already has the

technology to manufacture compliant products that meet consumer expectation. Second,

marketers are unlikely to introduce a product which does not meet their consumers’ expectations. 

This is because such an introduction would be damaging not only to the product sale, but also to

the sale of other products sold under the same brand name (impairing so-called “brand loyalty”). 

Finally, the Board has provided flexibility, under the existing consumer products program, to

businesses whose situations warrant an extension to their compliance dates. For companies which

can justify such variances, the additional time may afford more opportunity to explore different

formulation, cost-cutting, performance-enhancing, or other marketing strategies which can help

make the transition to new complying products nearly transparent to consumers. 

Potential Impact on Employment - The proposed measures are not expected to cause a

noticeable change in California employment and payroll. According to U.S. Department of

Commerce, California employment in the industries affected by the proposed measures was less

than 14,000 in 1996, as shown in Table VIII-4, or about 10 percent of national employment in the

affected industries. This represents about 0.7 percent of total manufacturing jobs in California. 

These employees working in the 160 establishments generated over $500 million in payroll, or

about 9 percent of national payroll in the affected industries. This also accounts for about 0.7

percent of the total California manufacturing payroll in 1996. Only two establishments had over

500 employees; 28 establishments had between 100 to 500 employees; the rest had less than 100

employees each.
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 205

Table VIII-4. California Employment and Payroll in Affected Industries

SIC

Number of Employees* Payroll*

 California CA Share as % of US California CA Share as %

 ($ million) of US

2841 1,752 6.0 63.1 5.4

2842 1,688 7.5 55.0 7.2

2844 7,630 12.6 274.7 13.1

2879 933 5.4 31.6 3.9

2891 1,715 8.0 74.7 8.8

Total 13,718 9.1 499.1 8.8

Source: 1996 County Business Patterns: The U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census.

Potential Impact on Business Creation, Elimination or Expansion - The proposed

measures would have no noticeable impact on the status of California businesses. This is because

the reformulation costs are not expected to impose a significant impact on the profitability of

businesses in California. However, some small businesses with little or no margin of profitability

may lack the financial resources to reformulate their products on a timely basis. Should the

proposed measures impose significant hardship on these businesses, temporary relief in the form

of a compliance date extension under the variance provision may be warranted.

On the other hand, the proposed measures may provide business opportunities for some

California businesses or result in the creation of new businesses. California businesses which

supply raw materials and equipment or provide consulting services to affected industries may

benefit from increased industry spending on reformulation. 

Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness - The proposed measures would have no

significant impact on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other

states. Because the proposed measures would apply to all businesses that manufacture or market

certain consumer products regardless of their location, the staff’s proposal should not present any

economic disadvantages specific to California businesses. 

Nonetheless, the proposed measures may have an adverse impact on the competitive

position of some small, marginal businesses in California if these businesses lack resources to

develop commercially acceptable products in a timely manner. As stated above, such impacts can

be mitigated to a degree with a justifiable compliance extension under the variance provision of

the consumer products regulation, or through additional regulatory flexibility afforded by the

Innovative Products provision or the Alternative Control Plan (ACP) regulation (see Section G). 

C. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CALIFORNIA STATE OR LOCAL
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 206

AGENCIES

We have identified no State or local agency that would be affected by the proposed new

limits. The California Prison Industry Authority (PIA), which manufactures or markets some

products for use in State service, is the only agency we are aware of that makes consumer

products. However, the PIA manufactures none of consumer products which are subject to the

proposed new limits. While we previously reported that the PIA made a line of general purpose

degreasers (ARB, 1997, VII-ChVIII-p.11), the only chemically-formulated products the PIA

currently sells are several lines of liquid and powder laundry detergents, none of which are subject

to the proposed new limits (PIA, 1999). Based on these facts, we have determined that the

proposed limits will not create costs or savings, as defined in Government Code section

11346.5(a)(6), to any State agency or in federal funding to the State, costs or mandate to any

local agency or school district whether or not reimbursable by the State pursuant to Part 7

(commencing with section 17500), Division 4, Title 2 of the Government Code, or other

nondiscretionary savings to local agencies.

D. ANALYSIS OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS (C.E.) OF THE PROPOSED

LIMITS

Introduction

In the following analysis, we evaluate the anticipated cost-effectiveness of the proposed

new limits. Such an evaluation allows us to compare the efficiency of the proposed limits sin

reducing a pound of VOC relative to other existing regulatory programs. To do this, we applied a

well-established methodology for converting compliance costs, both nonrecurring and recurring,

to an annual basis. We then report the ratio of the annualized costs to the annual emission

reductions in terms of “dollars (to be) spent per pound of VOC reduced.” For perspective, we 

compare the estimated cost-effectiveness of the proposed limits to the 

cost-effectiveness of other ARB regulations and control measures. 

Methodology

The cost-effectiveness of a limit is generally defined as the ratio of total dollars to be spent

to comply with the limit (as an annual cost) to the mass reduction of the pollutant(s) to be

achieved by complying with that limit (in annual pounds). Annual costs include annualized

nonrecurring fixed costs (e.g., total research and development (R&D), product and 

consumer testing, equipment purchases/modifications, etc.) and annual recurring costs 

(e.g., raw materials, labeling, packaging, etc.). 

In this analysis, we essentially treated each proposed limit as a separate, stand-alone

regulation. This approach, approved by the Board when the Mid-Term Measures were approved

in 1997, represents an expansion and upgrade of previous analyses conducted by ARB staff in

which groups of product categories were evaluated collectively for cost-effectiveness. The
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 207

approach used in this rulemaking is also significantly different from standardized 

cost-effectiveness analyses conducted for stationary sources, mobile sources, and other regulated

entities; in the typical analysis for those sources, only the cost-effectiveness for the entire

regulation is reported (i.e., the ratio of the total annual cost of the regulation to the total annual

emission reductions), rather than the cost-effectiveness for separate requirements of the regulation

(See ARB, Oct. 1998, Proposed Amendments to the California On-Road Motorcycle Regulation,

p. VI-15).

We believe treating each proposed limit as a separate regulation is appropriate for several

reasons. First, this approach prevents very cost-effective limits (e.g., those with large emission

reductions coupled with low costs) from “masking” relatively cost-ineffective limits. Such 

cost-ineffective limits can then be evaluated for possible elimination or substitution by other

proposed limits that are more cost-effective. Another reason for treating each limit independent

of the other limits is that each limit is essentially independent of all the other limits. For example,

the limit for windshield washer fluids does not depend on the limits for tire inflators or for nail

polish remover in order to be technologically and commercially feasible. For these reasons, we

believe our approach of treating each limit separately for cost-effectiveness calculations provides a

more conservative and reality-based analysis. 

It is possible that this approach may actually overestimate the costs because it does not

account for potential savings in nonrecurring costs from intracompany technology/R&D transfers

between product lines, using the same filling lines for different product lines, and other cost

mitigating efforts. While we know companies undertake these types of efforts and similar efforts

to reduce costs whenever possible, it is very difficult to quantify such cost savings, given the

complexity and high degree of competitiveness in this industry. Quantifying such cross-line

technology transfers and similar cost mitigation techniques is beyond the scope of this rulemaking

and will therefore be ignored in our conservative analysis.

In determining the fixed and recurring costs for each category and subcategory with a

proposed limit, we conducted a total of 22 individual cost-effectiveness analyses. This includes

21 cost analyses for each new proposed limit; an additional analysis for the existing general

purpose aerosol degreaser limit was conducted because aerosol solvent parts cleaners would be

subject to this limit under the staff’s proposal. With the level of detail presented and the treatment

of each limit’s cost-effectiveness independently from the other proposed limits, the costeffectiveness analysis in this report represents the most comprehensive analysis ARB staff have

conducted to date on a proposed consumer products rulemaking. 

We annualized nonrecurring fixed costs using the Capital Recovery Method, as

recommended under guidelines issued by the California Environmental Protection Agency

(Cal/EPA). Using this method, we multiply the estimated total fixed costs to comply with each

limit by the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) to convert these costs into equal annual payments

over a project horizon (i.e., the projected useful life of the investment) at a discount rate

(Cal/EPA, 1996). We then sum the annualized fixed costs with the annual recurring costs and 
=

(Annualized Fixed Costs) + (Annual Recurring Costs)

(Annual Mass Reduction in VOC)

Tier 1 Limit

Pre-Reg VOC

Tier 1 Limit

Pre-Reg VOC

Tier 1 Limit

Pre-Reg VOC

(Fixed Costs) x i (1+ i)

(1 + i) -1

n

n

(Compliant Materials Cost) - (Baseline Materials Cost)

(Baseline VOC Content) - (Compliant VOC Content)

Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 208

divide that sum by the annual emission reductions to calculate the cost-effectiveness of each limit,

as shown by the following general equation (example shown is for calculating 

cost-effectiveness from pre-regulatory to the proposed limit):

Cost-Effectiveness

(1)

where:

Annualized Fixed Costs = (2)

i(1+i) /((1+i) -1) = Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) n n

i = discount interest rate over project horizon, %

n = number of years in project horizon

Fixed Costs = total nonrecurring cost per product category

= (Nonrecurring Cost per Product) x (Total Noncompliant

Products in the Category)

As shown by the 22 raw materials cost analyses in Appendix E, a convenient method for

estimating the annual recurring cost portion of overall cost-effectiveness is to separate 

Equation (1) into two fractions, one for the nonrecurring costs and one for the recurring costs. 

It can then be shown that the C.E. fraction for recurring costs can be simplified and calculated as

follows:

Annual

Recurring Costs C.E. = (3)

where,

Baseline Materials Cost = cost of raw materials for product before

reformulation to the proposed limit (Tier 1), $/lb

product

Baseline VOC Content = product VOC weight fraction before reformulation

to Tier 1 limit, lb VOC/lb product

Compliant Materials Cost = cost of raw materials for Tier 1-compliant product,

$/lb product

Compliant VOC Content = product VOC weight fraction of Tier 1-compliant

product, lb VOC/lb product.

To use Equation (3), we determined the sales-weighted average VOC contents of both

compliant and noncompliant products in each of the 22 product categories/subcategories, based

on sales data and the speciated formulations as reported by manufacturers in the ARB’s 1997

Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. To the extent feasible, we then determined the
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 209

detailed formulations which most closely reflect the “typical” (i.e., sales-weighted average)

compliant and noncompliant VOC contents. These formulations, in turn, were designated as

compliant and baseline formulations, respectively. 

For most ingredients, we used the most recent, distributor-level bulk prices from Chemical

Market Reporter (July 12, 1999), or from discussions with industry representatives, to calculate

the baseline and compliant material costs based on these designated formulations. However, for

p-chlorobenzotrifluoride and HFC-134a, we used excerpts from recent issues of Chemical Market

Reporter (CMR) published by the Internet-based Northern Light Special Collections (CMR-2, ®

1999; CMR-3, 1999). Also, for glycol ether ingredients, we used prices published by the Dow

Chemical Company on their Internet site (Dow, 1999). Unspecified ingredients or ingredients for

which prices were unknown were grouped into an “all others” classification and assigned a default

low and high cost of $3.50 and $7.00 per pound, respectively (ARB, 1997, op cit. at Volume II,

p.56). These analyses are shown in Appendix E and discussed in more detail in “Analysis of

Impacts to Raw Materials Cost” later in this section. 

Assumptions

We calculated the cost-effectiveness with an assumed project horizon of 10 years, a

commonly cited period for an investment’s useful lifetime in the chemical processing industry. 

We also assumed a fixed interest rate of 10 percent throughout the project horizon. These

assumptions are conservative and constitute standard practice in cost-effectiveness analyses of air

pollution regulations, including previous consumer product rulemakings. Based on these

assumptions, the CRF is 0.16274.

In the first Mid-Term Measures rulemaking, we assumed products reformulated to meet

the proposed limits will be marketed throughout the U.S. by national marketers (ARB, 1997, VIICh-VIII, p.13). Except for the aerosol coatings regulation (Title 17, CCR, §§94520-94528), we

found that businesses generally formulate for and distribute to the entire nation products

compliant with the Phase I-II, antiperspirant/deodorant, and Mid-Term Measures regulations,

rather than incurring the additional cost of setting up a California versus 49-state product

distribution system. We believe the same strategy will be employed by companies subject to the

proposed new limits; we therefore assumed in this analysis that, for the annualized fixed cost

portion of Equation (1), it is appropriate to use the fixed cost for national production divided by

the national emission reductions.

However, an alternative but equivalent approach which we also used, is to report the

California-apportioned (by population) annualized fixed cost divided by the Californiaapportioned emission reductions. To illustrate, a manufacturer may need to install $10 million

worth of equipment to produce its national sales volume of products compliant with the proposed

limits. However, if the company were to produce a California and 49-state product, the company

may only need to install $1 million worth of equipment to produce unit sales sufficient for the

smaller California market. Using this alternative approach, we discounted the total fixed costs for
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 210

producing national sales volumes by the California-apportionment factor (i.e., the current ratio of

California to U.S. population, or 13%), which we then divided by the California-only emission

reductions. It is important to note that, while both of the approaches described above -- the

national marketing and California-only approaches -- reach the same conclusion, they do so for

different reasons as discussed above.

For the annual recurring costs, we assumed compliant reformulations would result in cost

changes as a result of changes in a product’s raw materials and their associated prices. Changes

in packaging, labeling, distribution and other recurring costs were assumed to be negligible

relative to baseline levels of these costs. This assumption is based on our previous regulatory

experiences. To illustrate, we conducted a comprehensive technical assessment of the 55 percent

VOC hairspray limit, which required extensive reformulations and revolutionary changes to

existing products (ARB, 1997). The hairspray limit is generally considered to be among the most

challenging of the consumer product limits; it likely resulted in more changes to the regulated

product, relative to pre-regulatory products, than any other VOC limit. However, our assessment

found that changes to recurring costs other than hairspray raw material costs were expected to be

negligible (Id, Vol-II, p.54). Based on this finding and because the proposed new limits are

designed to preserve product forms, we believe our assumptions regarding the recurring costs are

reasonable.

Results

A review of relevant technical literature and industry trade journals provided little

information that we could use to estimate costs directly. This is not surprising, because the

consumer products industry is very competitive, and production cost data specific to a company

are closely-guarded trade secrets. In addition, we have had very limited success with cost surveys

in the past and did not expect one to provide much useful information in this rulemaking (e.g.,

during the Phase II rulemaking, cost survey responses from only three manufacturers were

received out of several hundred that were mailed; ARB, 1991). We therefore developed estimates

for the nonrecurring costs based on analogous costs reported by ARB staff for the Phase II

consumer products rulemaking (Id, Appendix D1). The Phase II nonrecurring costs are

applicable for this analysis since they were based on staff’s detailed estimates of labor, R&D,

equipment purchase, and other costs involved in product reformulations for generic household,

automotive, and personal care categories, all of which are included in proposed limits. This is the

same approach we used for the 1997 Mid-Term Measures rulemaking.
Non-Recurring Costs (in 1997 dollars) = Non -Recurring Costs (in 1991 dollars) x 

C.E. 1997 index

C.E. 1991 index

Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 211

The Phase II nonrecurring investment costs, reported in 1991 dollars, were adjusted to

1999 dollars using a well-established method of ratioing chemical engineering plant cost indices as

follows (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1980):

where,

C.E. 1999 index = 1999 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = 388.6

C.E. 1991 index = 1991 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = 357.6

(Chemical Engineering, July 1999).

We believe the original Phase II cost estimates were beneficial at the time of rulemaking

for predicting the costs to comply with those limits. However, having recently completed a

detailed technical assessment of the hairspray second-tier limit, we believe those original cost

estimates grossly overestimated true nonrecurring costs for Phase II by about a factor of ten. The

aforementioned hairspray technical assessment projects industry will spend on average, based on

real-world expenditures to date, an estimated $100,000 per noncompliant hairspray product to

meet the second-tier limit ($20MM-$50MM total cost divided by an estimated 350 noncompliant

hairspray products; ARB, 1997, op cit. at Vol.II, page 54). Because the hairspray category

arguably represents a worst-case scenario, with its two-tier limits requiring extensive

reformulations, R&D, and consumer/safety testing, we believe the $100,000 per product

nonrecurring costs for hairsprays is a reasonable, order-of-magnitude upper boundary for average

per-product reformulation costs under most of the proposed new limits. We therefore estimated

the nonrecurring costs for most of the proposed new limits by adjusting the Phase II estimates to

be consistent (same order of magnitude) as the $100,000 per product real-world average

expenditures for hairsprays.

While we used the approach discussed above for most of the proposed limits, it is

important to note that we made a significantly different adjustment for the three insecticide

categories: crawling bug, flying bug, and lawn and garden insecticides. We changed our approach

for these categories based on a manufacturers’ cost survey recently conducted by the Chemical

Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA). From its survey, CSMA reports that its

members estimate most of the proposed limits would have nonrecurring costs ranging from

$25,000 to $75,000 per noncomplying product, which are well within the upper boundaries of

$90,000 to $120,000 we used in our analysis. The CSMA’s survey therefore validates most of

the nonrecurring costs we assumed in our analysis.

On the other hand, the CSMA reports significantly higher nonrecurring costs for the three

insecticide categories: $550,000 per product for the crawling bug and flying bug categories, and

$275,000 for the lawn and garden category. These are nearly 5 times and 2.5 times the

nonrecurring costs which we normally would have used for these categories, respectively, based

on the Phase II estimates and adjusted with our hairspray regulation experience as described

previously. Further evaluation of CSMA’s cost estimates for these three categories suggests that
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 212

CSMA’s estimates may be more applicable to these categories than our previous estimates, at

least for this rulemaking. This is because pesticide products subject to the proposed new limits

have already been recently regulated (in 1995 for lawn and garden and for flying bug products, in

1995 and 1998 for crawling bug products); each reformulation potentially requires significant and

costly FIFRA re-registration, efficacy, and toxicity studies if the active ingredients are changed or

if the product is substantially changed; and some products are expected to be substantially

changed as products are reformulated to meet the proposed near-zero VOC limits. Based on

these reasons, we adjusted our nonrecurring costs for these three categories to be consistent with

CSMA’s estimates (i.e., we used a per-product, upper boundary, nonrecurring cost of about

$575,000 for crawling bug and flying bug products, and about $250,000 for the lawn and garden

products).

It should be noted that CSMA also reported a nonrecurring cost for double-phase air

fresheners ($200,000 per product) that was significantly higher than our upper-bound estimate

(about $120,000 per product). However, unlike the pesticide categories, we found no compelling

reasons to explain why double-phase aerosol air fresheners should cost significantly more to

reformulate in nonrecurring costs than hairsprays or other household care products subject to the

proposed new limits. There are no FIFRA-based re-registration requirements or other regulatory

or statutory requirements that would significantly increase the nonrecurring costs for these

products beyond our estimated costs. We therefore adjusted our nonrecurring cost estimates only

for the pesticide products and used our own upper-bound estimate for double-phase air fresheners

based on the Phase II estimates as discussed previously.

Table VIII-5 shows our estimates for per-product and total annualized nonrecurring costs

for each of the 22 product categories/subcategories subject to the proposed limits. As shown, we

project a per-product annualized nonrecurring cost ranging from a low of about $8500 to a high

of about $600 thousand dollars. With nearly 1280 noncompliant products that would need to be

reformulated, the overall total annualized fixed cost to industry is projected to range from about

$3.2 million to nearly $33 million dollars per year, with a general breakdown of this range as

follows: household care products (43%), automotive care products (16%), personal care products

(7%) and pesticides (34%).

Table VIII-6 shows the overall results of our cost-effectiveness analysis, with separate

cost-effectiveness fractions representing the annualized nonrecurring and annual recurring costs. 

In general, Table VIII-6 shows that the annualized nonrecurring fixed costs (i.e., R&D, product

testing, etc.) have a relatively small impact on overall cost-effectiveness for the affected

categories, except for the pesticides. For the most part, the raw materials cost (i.e., annual

recurring cost) has the most significant impact on overall cost-effectiveness. Table VIII-6 shows

that the estimated cost-effectiveness ranges from a low of $0.00 (net savings or no cost for

several categories) to a high of about $6.30 per pound VOC for the flying bug insecticide limit.

Another useful quantity to report is the emission reductions-weighted average (ERWA)

cost-effectiveness. This value is the sum of the products of the emission reductions for each limit
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 213

and its associated cost-effectiveness, divided by the sum of the total emission reductions for all the

proposed limits. In contrast to a simple arithmetic mean of the reported cost-effectiveness values,

the ERWA cost-effectiveness accounts for the relative magnitude of emission reductions and the

relative efficiency of each limit in achieving those reductions. Thus, the ERWA 

cost-effectiveness is, in theory, a better indicator of the true average cost-effectiveness for

achieving a pound of reduction under the proposed limits. As shown in Table VIII-6, the ERWA

cost-effectiveness is about $0.40 per pound of VOC reduced. This reflects the relatively 

cost-effective and large emission reductions in the automotive and household categories. Thus,

the average cost to reduce one pound of VOCs under the proposed limits is less than half a dollar,

indicating that total industry-wide annual compliance costs to achieve 21 tons per day VOC

reductions statewide in 1997 should be about $6 million per year.
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 214

[INSERT TABLE VIII-5]

Estimated Total Non-Recurring Fixed Costs to Comply with Proposed

Mid-Term Measures II Limits
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 215

[INSERT TABLE VIII-6]

Estimated Cost-Effectiveness for Proposed Mid-Term Measures II Limits
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 216

Table VIII-7 shows a comparison of the cost-effectiveness for the proposed limits relative

to other ARB consumer product regulations and control measures. As shown, the 

cost-effectiveness range of the staff’s proposal is consistent with the cost-effectiveness of other

ARB regulations and programs.

Table VIII-7. Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for Phase III and Other

ARB Consumer Product Regulations/Measures (adjusted to 1998 dollars)

Regulation/Control Measure (Dollars per Pound VOC Reduced)

Cost-Effectiveness

Mid-Term Measures II Consumer Products $0.00 to $6.30 ($0.40 avg.)

Mid-Term Measures Consumer Products $0.00 to $7.10 ($0.25 avg.) 1

Hairsprays $2.10 to $2.50 ($2.25 avg.) 2

Aerosol Coating Products $2.85 to $3.20 3

Phase II Consumer Products Regulation <$0.01 to $1.10 4

Phase I Consumer Products Regulation net savings to $1.80 5

Antiperspirants and Deodorants $0.54 to $1.30 6

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings net savings to $6.90 7

Cost-effectiveness values for previous years adjusted to 1997 dollars using the following

Chemical Engineering Plant Cost indices: 383.4 (1997), 381.1 (1995), 361.3 (1991), and 357.6

(1989-1990); Chem. Eng., April 1996/1997. 

Range reported as min./max. for each individual Phase III limit; average C.E. of $0.25/lb 1

reduced reported as an emission reductions-weighted average cost-effectiveness.

Reported as sales-wtd average, incremental 2nd-tier cost-effectiveness (80% VOC to 2

55% VOC); ARB, 1997.

ARB, 1995. 3

ARB, 1991. 4

ARB, 1990. 5

ARB, 1989. 6

Suggested Control Measure, developed with the California Air Pollution Control Officers 7

Association; ARB, 1989.

E. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS TO RAW MATERIALS COST

Introduction

In this analysis, we evaluated the anticipated cost impacts from the proposed limits on 

raw material costs. As stated previously, the raw material costs generally constitute the major

portion of the compliance costs for most categories. However, evaluating the impacts to raw
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 217

material costs provides only an indicator of possible impacts to the retail prices of the affected

products (assuming the cost impacts are passed on partially or fully to consumers). Because of

unpredictable factors such as the highly competitive nature of the consumer products market, it is

not possible to accurately predict the final retail price of products that will comply with the

proposed limits when they become effective. To the extent the cost impacts are passed on to

consumers, the final retail prices may be lower or higher than suggested by this analysis.

Methodology

As discussed previously, we determined the detailed formulations which most closely

reflect the “typical” (sales-weighted average) compliant and noncompliant VOC contents. These

formulations, in turn, were designated as compliant and baseline formulations, respectively. 

Distributor-level ingredient prices from Chemical Market Reporter (July 12, 1999) or from

discussions with industry representatives were used to calculate the baseline and compliant

material costs for these formulations. Other sources of cost information were used for selected

ingredients as discussed previously. Unspecified ingredients or ingredients for which prices were

unknown were grouped into an “all others” classification and assigned a default low and high cost

of $3.50 and $7.00 per pound, respectively (ARB, 1997, op cit. at Volume II, p.56). These

analyses and the detailed formulations evaluated (with individual weight fractions and unit prices

per pound) are shown as cost spreadsheets in Appendix F. While these formulations may not

reflect the exact composition of existing noncompliant products and compliant products that will

be marketed, we believe they are reasonably representative for the purposes of this analysis.

Assumptions

As noted previously, we assumed changes in packaging, labeling, distribution and other

recurring costs to be negligible relative to baseline levels of these costs (ARB, 1997). 

Worst-case formulations using HFC-152a or HFC-134a as propellants were assumed for

compliant aerosol products if no other, less costly propellant systems were considered to be likely

used in “typical” compliant formulations; despite this assumption, alternative formulations using

other non-VOC propellants, compressed gases, or dimethyl ether (DME), or some combination

with these or existing propellant systems may allow lower-cost compliant products than shown in

our analysis.

Results

As shown in Table VIII-10, the anticipated raw materials cost changes range from no cost

(net savings or no cost) to about $0.25 increase per unit (tire inflator and sealants).
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 218

[INSERT TABLE VIII-8]

Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost ($/Unit of Product) for Proposed Mid-Term

Measures II Limits
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 219

Table VIII-9 shows a comparison of the impacts to raw materials cost under the proposed

limits relative to those of other ARB consumer product regulations. As shown, the raw materials

cost impacts under the proposed limits are comparable to those of other ARB regulations. 

Table VIII-9. Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impacts for the Proposed Limits

and Other ARB Consumer Product Regulations (unadjusted dollars)

Regulation (Dollars per Unit of Product)

Cost Impacts

Mid-Term Measures II $0.00 to $0.25

Phase III (Mid-Term Measures 1) Consumer $0.00 to $0.60

Products Regulation1

Hairsprays ($0.10) to $0.45 2

Aerosol Coating Products $0.30 to $0.34 3

Phase II Consumer Products Regulation <$0.01 to $0.60 4

Phase I Consumer Products Regulation net savings to $0.25 5

Antiperspirants and Deodorants $0.25 6

Phase III Staff Report; ARB, 1997 1 .

$0.45/unit reported as a worst-case scenario using high-level of HFC-152a as propellant 2

in “premium” products.

ARB, 1995. 3

ARB, 1991. 4

ARB, 1990. 5

Estimate based on assumption of using HFC-152a to replace HC propellants and meet 6

the 0% HVOC limit.

F. ANALYSIS OF THE COMBINED IMPACTS ON PER-UNIT COST FROM

RECURRING AND NONRECURRING COSTS

Introduction

In this analysis, we evaluated the combined impacts of both recurring (i.e., raw materials

costs) and nonrecurring costs from the proposed limits on per-unit costs. Although the raw

material costs generally constitute the major portion of the compliance costs, in some categories,

particularly the pesticides, the nonrecurring (fixed) cost was the major contributor. In performing

this analysis, we used the fixed costs, raw material costs, assumptions, and other facts discussed

previously.

Methodology
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 220

This method differs from the raw materials cost-only analysis in the previous section in

that the nonrecurring cost in this analysis is assumed to be “spread out” (i.e., recouped) through

the entire California sales volume of each product category. Thus, the total annual recurring and

annualized nonrecurring costs reported previously is divided by the number of units sold in

California per year to estimate the per-unit cost increase. The California sales volume for a

product category is estimated by dividing the total VOC emissions (pounds of VOC per year) for

that category by the category’s sales-weighted average VOC content (pounds of VOC per pound

of product).

Results

As shown in Table VIII-10, the combined fixed and raw material cost changes to 

per-unit production costs ranged from no cost increase (net savings or no cost for various

categories) to about $0.30 per unit (tire inflator and sealants, flying bug insecticides). Averaged

over the sales volume for each category, the unit sales-weighted average cost increase is about

$0.02 per unit. This is similar to the unit sales-weighted average cost increase of $0.03 we

estimated for the first Mid-Term Measures regulation adopted by the Board in 1997.
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 221

[INSERT TABLE VIII-10 HERE]
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 222

G. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS THROUGH ADDITIONAL

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

If adopted by the Board, the proposed limits will be incorporated in section 94509 of the

consumer products regulation (Title 17, California Code of Regulations, §§94507-94517). To

complement the mandatory VOC limits specified in section 94509, the existing consumer products

program provides a very high degree of compliance flexibility to mitigate cost impacts as much as

possible, through two voluntary, market-based programs: the Innovative Products Provision and

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

established under section 94511 (Title 17, CCR), allows qualified manufacturers to sell products

that have VOC contents greater than the applicable VOC limit, provided they demonstrate that

such products actually emit less VOCs than representative products that comply with the VOC

limit. Using the emissions trading approach, the ACP is a voluntary regulation (Title 17, CCR,

§§94520--94528) designed to allow multi-product VOC averaging as an alternate means of

complying with the VOC limits.

Various manufacturers have formulated technologically-advanced, IPP products that are

more concentrated, higher in efficacy, or have some other chemical or physical properties that

permit users to release less VOCs when using such products. To date, 13 manufacturers have

obtained IPP approvals for 23 products. Based on their participation in the program, it is

reasonable to conclude that manufacturers are using this program to provide consumers with

products that meet their needs, while lowering costs, improving the “market value” of their

products, or otherwise maintaining profit margins.

The potential benefits of emissions averaging or “bubbling” for consumer product

manufacturers under the ACP regulation have been documented by ARB staff (ARB, 1994). In

general, emissions averaging under approved ACP plans allows manufacturers to choose the leastcost or other advantageous reformulation options for its product lines. Rather than directly

complying with each and every VOC limit, manufacturers can choose to “overcomply” with some

reformulations in order to offset the “undercompliance” of other product lines. The ACP

regulation requires the net resulting emissions from products under such averaging plans to be no

greater than the level which would have resulted had all the products under the ACP bubble

directly complied with the applicable limits. In short, the same emission reductions are achieved

while providing a high degree of formulation and marketing flexibility to manufacturers. To date,

three manufacturers have implemented approved ACP averaging programs, reducing VOC

emissions by over 2 million pounds more than would have occurred under the mandatory VOC

limits. We anticipate that such emissions averaging will also benefit manufacturers subject to the

proposed limits.

Overall, most affected businesses will benefit from the Innovative Products Provision and

the ACP regulation. Both programs are completely voluntary and impose no additional costs to

businesses to meet their requirements other than testing and reporting requirements. 

Manufacturers who take advantage of these market-based programs presumably do so because it

costs less than direct compliance with the limits or it provides some other market benefits. 
Volume II, Chapter VIII, Page 223

According to previous staff analyses, the potential cost differential which might result

from competition under the ACP between small and large firms would not necessarily cause

extreme hardship on small firms (Id. at Vol.II, X-13). However, inclusion of the proposed limits

in the ACP regulation may increase the level of competition for some products and may lead to

the elimination of some marginal producers for those products. Such competition may also have

minor impacts on California employment and payroll. However, the impact is expected to be

positive in the long term. Any potential impacts on the ability of California businesses to compete

with businesses in other states are also expected to be minimal.

REFERENCES

Akins, John, California Prison Industry Authority, personal communication with ARB staff, 

May 5, 1997 (PIAa, 1997).

California Air Resources Board (ARB), Technical Support Document for a Proposed Regulation

to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Antiperspirants and Deodorants,

September 1989a, Appendix C, pp. C.1-C.62 (ARB, 1989a).

California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers

Association (CAPCOA), Suggested Control Measure for Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coatings, Staff Report, 1989b (ARB, 1989b).

California Air Resources Board (ARB), Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions from Consumer Products, Technical Support Document, August 1990, 

pp. 67-71 and Appendix E (ARB, 1990).

California Air Resources Board (ARB), Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase II, Technical

Support Document, October 1991, pp. VI.1-VI.6 and Appendix D (ARB, 1991).

California Air Resources Board (ARB), Proposed Alternative Control Plan for Consumer

Products, Staff Report, August 1994, pp. III.3-III.5 and VI.8-VI.24.

California Air Resources Board (ARB); Initial Statement of Reasons for a Proposed Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products and

Amendments to the Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products; February 3, 1995; 

Volume II, pp. VIII.1-VIII.20, X.1-X.13 and Appendix G (ARB, 1995).

California Air Resources Board (ARB); Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments

Pertaining to Hairspray in the California Consumer Products Regulation; February 7, 1997; 

Volume II, pp. 44-59 (ARB, 1997).
Volume II, Chapter IX, Page 224

IX.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES

In the fall of 1999 staff will be working on two major projects: a reactivity-based

compliance alternative for aerosol coatings (the California Low Emissions and Reactivity

(CLEAR) Regulation), and an update to the consumer products element of the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). 

A. REACTIVITY-BASED REGULATION FOR AEROSOL COATINGS

Staff began working on a photochemical reactivity-based compliance option for aerosol

coatings in 1998. The proposed CLEAR Regulation is based on the theory that volatile organic

compounds (VOC) react in the atmosphere at different rates and through different chemical

reactions. Because of this, each VOC has a different potential to form ozone once emitted. This

ozone formation potential can be quantified, and a scale developed to compare reactivities. As

the basis for this regulation, we are proposing to use the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR)

scale, developed by Dr. William Carter at the University of California at Riverside. While the

current aerosol coatings regulation limits the total mass of VOCs, using the MIR scale, limits can

be established that restrict the total ozone formation potential of products. 

During development of the regulation, industry and the Reactivity Scientific Advisory

Committee (RSAC) suggested that the basis for Dr. Carter’s MIR scale be peer-reviewed. We

agreed. To allow time for the review, however, development of the regulation was postponed. 

To conduct the review, the ARB contracted with Dr. William Stockwell at the Desert Research

Institute. As of this writing, the review is complete and we expect to submit the final report to

the RSAC for discussion at their fall 1999 meeting. After RSAC approval, staff will continue

their efforts on regulation development. 

During the fall of 1999 staff will focus efforts on ensuring that the CLEAR limits provide

equivalent ozone reductions as achieved through the mass-based VOC limits, and will work on

proposals to address MIR uncertainty and hydrocarbon solvent reactivities. Staff will also

continue development of the computer program that is being designed to assist industry in

calculating a product’s reactivity. A prototype of the program was shared with industry early in

1999. The goal is to bring the CLEAR Regulation for Aerosol Coatings to the Board for their

consideration in the spring of 2000. 

B. STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE 

Over the next year, ARB will be working on a comprehensive update to the statewide

strategies in the 1994 Ozone SIP. The motor vehicle emission inventory model is currently being

updated, as is the off-road mobile source emissions inventory. The consumer products emissions

inventory is also being updated using the 1997 Consumer Products Survey, and the South Coast
Volume II, Chapter IX, Page 225

Air Quality Management District is pursuing similar efforts for stationary sources in the region. 

These revised inventories, in combination with new ozone episode data from the Southern

California Ozone Study, will be used to refine the air quality model for the South Coast Air Basin

to determine the revised emission reduction target needed to attain federal and state health-based

ozone standards in the Basin.

To kick off the development of new statewide strategies, on October 5-7, 1999, ARB will

host Exploring New Technologies for Clean Air, a symposium to highlight technologies capable

of achieving zero and near-zero emissions. We will follow up the symposium with workshops to

discuss the comprehensive statewide emission reduction strategy. Throughout this process, we

will continue to work closely with the regulated industry, government agencies, academia,

environmental groups and the public as we develop plans for achieving the health-based ambient

air quality standards. We will continue to work closely with the Consumer Products Working

Group and other representatives of the consumer products industry to re-evaluate the appropriate

level for long-term commitments for consumer products. 

We anticipate presenting a revised control plan for the Board’s consideration and adoption

in 2000 or 2001. The revised statewide strategy will also be incorporated into the South Coast

Air Quality Management District’s updated Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Upon

adoption of the AQMP by the District Board and the Air Resources Board, we will submit the

revised emission inventories, attainment demonstration, and control plan to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as a SIP revision. The 1994 Ozone SIP will

continue to apply until U.S. EPA approves the SIP revision.
APPENDIX A:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSUMER PRODUCTS

REGULATION.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 1

Proposed Regulation Order

REGULATION FOR REDUCING

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

EMISSIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS

[Note: The proposed amendments to Sections 94508, 94509, and 94513, Title 17, 

California Code of Regulations, for this rulemaking action are shown in strikeout to indicate

proposed deletions and underline to indicate proposed additions. In the interests of clarity and

completeness, the regulation text below shows other recent amendments that have been proposed

or approved by the Board, but have not yet been submitted to the Office of Administrative Law

and are not yet legally effective. The recent amendments appear only in section 94508(a)(78),

and are identified by underlined italics to indicate additions and by italicized strikeouts to indicate

deletions. These recent amendments are not part of the present proposal. They were made in

connection with a rulemaking action considered by the Board at a November 19, 1998, public

hearing.]

Amend Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 94508, 94509, and 94513 to read as

follows:

SUBCHAPTER 8.5 CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Article 2. Consumer Products

94507. Applicability

Except as provided in Sections 94509(i) and 94510, this article shall apply to any person

who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures consumer products for use in the state

of California.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code.

94508. Definitions

(a) For the purpose of this article, the following definitions apply:

( 1) “Adhesive” means any product that is used to bond one surface to another by attachment. 

“Adhesive” does not include products used on humans and animals, adhesive tape, contact

paper, wallpaper, shelf liners, or any other product with an adhesive incorporated onto or

in an inert substrate. For “Contact Adhesive,” “Construction, and Panel, and Floor

Covering Adhesive,” and “General Purpose Adhesive” only, “adhesive” also does not
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 2

include units of product, less packaging, which weigh more than one pound or and consist

of more than 16 fluid ounces. This limitation does not apply to aerosol adhesives. For the

purpose of this article, “Aerosol Adhesive” means an aerosol product in which the spray

mechanism is permanently housed in a nonrefillable can designed for hand-held application

without the need for ancillary hoses or spray equipment.

( 2) “Adhesive Remover” means a product designed exclusively for the removal of adhesives,

caulk and other bonding materials from either a specific substrate or a variety of

substrates.

( 3) “Aerosol Cooking Spray” means any aerosol product designed either to reduce sticking on

cooking and baking surfaces or to be applied on food, or both.

( 4) “Aerosol Product” means a pressurized spray system that dispenses product ingredients

by means of a propellant or mechanically induced force. “Aerosol Product” does not

include pump sprays.

( 5) “Agricultural Use” means the use of any pesticide or method or device for the control of

pests in connection with the commercial production, storage or processing of any animal

or plant crop. “Agricultural Use” does not include the sale or use of pesticides in properly

labeled packages or containers which are intended for: (A) Home use, (B) Use in

structural pest control, or (C) Industrial or Institutional use. For the purposes of this

definition only:

“Home use” means use in a household or its immediate environment. 

“Structural pest control” means a use requiring a license under Chapter 14

(commencing with Section 8500), Division 3, of the Business and Professions

Code.

“Industrial use” means use for or in a manufacturing, mining, or chemical process

or use in the operation of factories, processing plants, and similar sites.

“Institutional use” means use within the lines of, or on property necessary for the

operation of buildings such as hospitals, schools, libraries, auditoriums, and office

complexes.

( 6) “Air Freshener” means any consumer product including, but not limited to, sprays, wicks,

powders, and crystals, designed for the purpose of masking odors, or freshening, cleaning,

scenting, or deodorizing the air. “Air Freshener” includes dual purpose air

freshener/disinfectant products. “Air Freshener” does not include products that are used

on the human body, or products that function primarily as cleaning products as indicated

on a product label or advertisement.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 3

( 7) “All Other Carbon-Containing Compounds” means all other compounds which contain at

least one carbon atom and are not a “Table B” or a “LVP-VOC.” 

( 8) “All Other Forms” means all consumer product forms for which no form-specific VOC

standard is specified. Unless specified otherwise by the applicable VOC standard, “all

other forms” include, but are not limited to, solids, liquids, wicks, powders, crystals, and

cloth or paper wipes (towelettes).

( 9) “Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” means a cleaner or soap which is designed

to reduce the level of microorganisms on the skin through germicidal activity, and is

regulated as an over-the-counter drug by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

“Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” includes, but is not limited to, 

(A) antimicrobial hand or body washes/cleaners, (B) foodhandler hand washes, (C)

healthcare personnel hand washes, (D) pre-operative skin preparations and (E) surgical

scrubs. “Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” does not include prescription

drug products, antiperspirants, “Astringent/Toner,” deodorant, “Facial Cleaner or Soap,”

“General-use Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap,” “Hand Dishwashing Detergent” (including

antimicrobial), “Heavy-duty Hand Cleaner or Soap,” “Medicated Astringent/Medicated

Toner,” and “Rubbing Alcohol.”

(10) “Architectural Coating” means a coating applied to stationary structures and their

appurtenances, to mobile homes, to pavements, or to curbs.

(11) “ASTM” means the American Society for Testing and Materials.

(12) “Astringent/Toner” means any product not regulated as a drug by the United States Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) which is applied to the skin for the purpose of cleaning or

tightening pores. This category also includes clarifiers and substrate-impregnated

products. This category does not include any hand, face, or body cleaner or soap product,

“Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner”, “Personal Fragrance Product”, cold cream,

lotion, or antiperspirant.

(13) “Automotive Brake Cleaner” means a cleaning product designed to remove oil, grease,

brake fluid, brake pad material or dirt from motor vehicle brake mechanisms.

(14) “Automotive Hard Paste Wax” means an automotive wax or polish which is: (A)

designed to protect and improve the appearance of automotive paint surfaces; and (B) a

solid at room temperature; and (C) contains 0% water by formulation.

(15) “Automotive Instant Detailer” means a product designed for use in a pump spray that is

applied to the painted surface of automobiles and wiped off prior to the product being

allowed to dry.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 4

(16) “Automotive Rubbing or Polishing Compound” means a product designed primarily to

remove oxidation, old paint, scratches or “swirl marks”, and other defects from the

painted surfaces of motor vehicles without leaving a protective barrier.

(17) “Automotive Wax, Polish, Sealant or Glaze” means a product designed to seal out

moisture, increase gloss, or otherwise enhance a motor vehicle’s painted surfaces. 

“Automotive Wax, Polish, Sealant or Glaze” includes, but is not limited to, products

designed for use in autobody repair shops and “drive-through” car washes, as well as

products designed for the general public. “Automotive Wax, Polish, Sealant or Glaze”

does not include “Automotive Rubbing or Polishing Compounds”, automotive wash and

wax products, surfactant-containing car wash products, and products designed for use on

unpainted surfaces such as bare metal, chrome, glass, or plastic.

(18) “Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Dilutable)” means any liquid sold in a 1 quart

container or less, and designed for use in a motor vehicle windshield washer fluid system

either as an anti-freeze or for the purpose of cleaning, washing, bug removal, or wetting

the windshield(s). “Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Dilutable)” does not include

any fluid which is placed in a new motor vehicle at the time the vehicle is manufactured.

(19) “Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Pre-Mixed)” means any liquid sold in a container

greater than 1 quart in volume and designed for use in a motor vehicle windshield washer

fluid system either as an anti-freeze or for the purpose of cleaning, washing, bug removal,

or wetting the windshield(s). “Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Pre-Mixed)” does

not include any fluid which is placed in a new motor vehicle at the time the vehicle is

manufactured.

(2019) “Bathroom and Tile Cleaner” means a product designed to clean tile or surfaces in

bathrooms. “Bathroom and Tile Cleaner” does not include products specifically designed

to clean toilet bowls or toilet tanks.

(2120) “Bug and Tar Remover” means a product designed to remove either or both of the

following from painted motor vehicle surfaces without causing damage to the finish: (A)

biological-type residues such as insect carcasses and tree sap and, (B) road grime, such as

road tar, roadway paint markings, and asphalt.

(2221) “California Sales” means the sales (net pounds of product, less packaging and container,

per year) in California for either the calendar year immediately prior to the year that the

registration is due or, if that data is not available, any consecutive 12 month period

commencing no earlier than 2 years prior to the due date of the registration. If direct sales

data for California is not available, sales may be estimated by prorating national or

regional sales data by population.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 5

(2322) “Carburetor-Choke Cleaner or Fuel-Injection Air Intake Cleaners” means a product

designed to remove fuel deposits, dirt, or other contaminants from a carburetor, choke,

throttle body of a fuel-injection system, or associated linkages. “Carburetor -Choke

Cleaner or fuel-injection air intake cleaners” does not include products designed

exclusively to be introduced directly into the fuel lines or fuel storage tank prior to

introduction into the carburetor or fuel injectors.

(2423) “Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner” means a cleaning product designed for the purpose of

eliminating dirt and stains on rugs, carpeting, and the interior of motor vehicles and/or on

household furniture or objects upholstered or covered with fabrics such as wool, cotton,

nylon or other synthetic fabrics. “Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner” includes, but is not

limited to, products that make fabric protectant claims. “Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner”

does not include “General Purpose Cleaners”, “Spot Removers”, vinyl or leather cleaners,

dry cleaning fluids, or products designed exclusively for use at industrial facilities engaged

in furniture or carpet manufacturing.

(2524) “Charcoal Lighter Material” means any combustible material designed to be applied on,

incorporated in, added to, or used with charcoal to enhance ignition. “Charcoal Lighter

Material” does not include any of the following: (A) electrical starters and probes, 

(B) metallic cylinders using paper tinder, (C) natural gas, (D) propane, and (E) fat wood.

(2625) “Colorant” means any pigment or coloring material used in a consumer product for an

aesthetic effect, or to dramatize an ingredient.

(2726) “Construction, and Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesive” means any one-component

adhesive having gap filling capabilities; and which distributes stress uniformly throughout

the bonded area, resulting in a reduction or elimination of mechanical fasteners. that is

designed exclusively for the installation, remodeling, maintenance, or repair of: (A)

structural and building components that include, but are not limited to, beams, trusses,

studs, paneling (drywall or drywall laminates, fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP),

plywood, particle board, insulation board, pre-decorated hardboard or tileboard, etc.),

ceiling and acoustical tile, molding, fixtures, countertops or countertop laminates, cove or

wall bases, and flooring or subflooring; or (B) floor or wall coverings that include, but are

not limited to, wood or simulated wood covering, carpet, carpet pad or cushion,

vinyl-backed carpet, flexible flooring material, nonresilient flooring material, mirror tiles

and other types of tiles, and artificial grass. “Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering

Adhesive” does not include “Floor Seam Sealer”.

(2827) “Consumer” means any person who seeks, purchases, or acquires any consumer product

for personal, family, household, or institutional use. Persons acquiring a consumer

product for resale are not “consumers” for that product.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 6

(2928) “Consumer Product” means a chemically formulated product used by household and

institutional consumers including, but not limited to, detergents; cleaning compounds;

polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden

products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products; but 

does not include other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings.

(3029) “Contact Adhesive” means an adhesive that: (A) is designed for application to both

surfaces to be bonded together, and (B) is allowed to dry before the two surfaces are

placed in contact with each other, and (C) forms an immediate bond that is impossible, or

difficult, to reposition after both adhesive-coated surfaces are placed in contact with each

other, and (D) does not need sustained pressure or clamping of surfaces after the

adhesive-coated surfaces have been brought together using sufficient momentary pressure

to establish full contact between both surfaces. “Contact Adhesive” does not include

rubber cements that are primarily intended for use on paper substrates.

(3130) “Container/Packaging” means the part or parts of the consumer or institutional product

which serve only to contain, enclose, incorporate, deliver, dispense, wrap or store the

chemically formulated substance or mixture of substances which is solely responsible for

accomplishing the purposes for which the product was designed or intended. 

“Container/Packaging” includes any article onto or into which the principal display panel

and other accompanying literature or graphics are incorporated, etched, printed or

attached.

(3231) “Crawling Bug Insecticide” means any insecticide product that is designed for use against

ants, cockroaches, or other household crawling arthropods, including, but not limited to,

mites, silverfish or spiders. “Crawling Bug Insecticide” does not include products

designed to be used exclusively on humans or animals, or any house dust mite product. 

For the purposes of this definition only:

“House dust mite product” means a product whose label, packaging, or accompanying

literature states that the product is suitable for use against house dust mites, but does

not indicate that the product is suitable for use against ants, cockroaches, or other

household crawling arthropods.

“House dust mite” means mites which feed primarily on skin cells shed in the home by

humans and pets and which belong to the phylum Arthropoda, the subphylum

Chelicerata, the class Arachnida, the subclass Acari, the order Astigmata, and the

family Pyroglyphidae.

(3332) “Device” means any instrument or contrivance (other than a firearm) which is designed for

trapping, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest or any other form of plant or animal

life (other than man and other than bacteria, virus, or other microorganism on or
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 7

in living man or other living animals); but not including equipment used for the application

of pesticides when sold separately therefrom.

(3433) “Disinfectant” means any product intended to destroy or irreversibly inactivate infectious

or other undesirable bacteria, pathogenic fungi, or viruses on surfaces or inanimate objects

and whose label is registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.). “Disinfectant” does not include any of the following: 

(A) products designed solely for use on human or animals, (B) products designed for

agricultural use, (C) products designed solely for use in swimming pools, therapeutic tubs,

or hot tubs, (D) products which, as indicated on the principal display panel or label, are

designed primarily for use as bathroom and tile cleaners, glass cleaners, general purpose

cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, or metal polishes.

(3534) “Distributor” means any person to whom a consumer product is sold or supplied for the

purposes of resale or distribution in commerce, except that manufacturers, retailers, and

consumers are not distributors.

(3635) “Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener” means an aerosol air freshener with the liquid

contents in two or more distinct phases that requires the product container be shaken

before use to mix the phases, producing an emulsion.

(3736) “Dry Cleaning Fluid” means any non-aqueous liquid product designed and labeled

exclusively for use on: (1) fabrics which are labeled “for dry clean only”, such as clothing

or drapery; or (2) “S-coded” fabrics. “Dry Cleaning Fluid” includes, but is not limited to,

those products used by commercial dry cleaners and commercial businesses that clean

fabrics such as draperies at the customer’s residence or work place. “Dry Cleaning Fluid”

does not include “Spot Remover” or “Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner”. For the purposes

of this definition, S-coded fabric means an upholstery fabric designed to be cleaned only 

with water-free spot cleaning products as specified by the Joint Industry Fabric Standards

Committee.” 

(3837) “Dual Purpose Air Freshener/Disinfectant” means an aerosol product that is represented on

the product container for use as both a disinfectant and an air freshener, or is so represented

on any sticker, label, packaging, or literature attached to the product container.

(3938) “Dusting Aid” means a product designed to assist in removing dust and other soils from

floors and other surfaces without leaving a wax or silicone based coating. “Dusting Aid”

does not include products which consist entirely of compressed gases for use in electronic or

other specialty areas.

(4039) “Electronic Cleaner”means a product designed specifically for the removal of dirt, grease or

grime from electrical equipment such as electric motors, circuit boards, electricity panels,

and generators.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 8

(4140) “Engine Degreaser” means a cleaning product designed to remove grease, grime, oil and

other contaminants from the external surfaces of engines and other mechanical parts.

(4241) “Executive Officer” means the Executive Officer of the Air Resources Board, or his or her

delegate.

(4342) “Existing Product” means any formulation of the same product category and form sold,

supplied, manufactured, or offered for sale in California prior to the following dates, or 

any subsequently introduced identical formulation:

(A) October 21, 1991, for all products listed in section 94509(a) that have initial

effective dates of January 1, 1993, or January 1, 1994; subject to the Phase I VOC

standards specified in section 94509(a);

(B) January 6, 1993, for all products listed in section 94509(a) that have initial effective

dates of January 1, 1995, or January 1, 1997, and charcoal lighter materials subject

to section 94509(h); subject to the Phase II VOC standards specified in section

94509(a);

(C) the operative date of the Phase III VOC standards (i.e., 30 days after the Phase III

rulemaking action is approved by the Office of Administrative Law), for products

subject to the Phase III VOC standards specified in section 94509(a). 

August 18, 1998, for all products listed in section 94509(a) that have initial effective

dates of January 1, 2001, January 1, 2002, January 1, 2003, or January 1, 2005;

(D) the operative date of the “Mid-term Measures II” amendments (i.e. 30 days after the

“Mid-term Measures II” rulemaking action is approved by the Office of

Administrative Law), for all products in the following product categories listed in

section 94509(a): “Non-aerosol General Purpose Degreaser,” “Sealant and Caulking

Compound,” and “Tire Sealant and Inflator.”

(4443) “Fabric Protectant” means a product designed to be applied to fabric substrates to protect

the surface from soiling from dirt and other impurities or to reduce absorption of water

liquid into the fabric's fibers. “Fabric Protectant” does not include silicone-based products

whose function is to provide water repellency, waterproofers, products designed for use

solely on leather, or products designed for use solely on fabrics which are labeled “for dry

clean only” and sold in containers of 10 fluid ounces or less.

(4544) “Facial Cleaner or Soap” means a cleaner or soap designed primarily to clean the face. 

“Facial Cleaner or Soap” includes, but is not limited to, facial cleansing creams, gels,

liquids, lotions, and substrate-impregnated forms. “Facial Cleaner or Soap” does not

include prescription drug products, “Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap,”

“Astringent/Toner,” “General-use Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap,” “Medicated
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 9

Astringent/Medicated Toner,” or “Rubbing Alcohol.”

(4645) “Fat Wood” means pieces of wood kindling with high naturally-occurring levels of sap or

resin which enhance ignition of the kindling. “Fat wood” does not include any kindling

with substances added to enhance flammability, such as wax-covered or wax-impregnated

wood-based products.

(4746) “Flea and Tick Insecticide” means any insecticide product that is designed for use against

fleas, ticks, their larvae, or their eggs. “Flea and Tick Insecticide” does not include

products that are designed to be used exclusively on humans or animals and their bedding.

(4847) “Flexible Flooring Material” means asphalt, cork, linoleum, no-wax, rubber, seamless vinyl

and vinyl composite flooring.

(4948) “Floor Polish or Wax” means a wax, polish, or any other product designed to polish,

protect, or enhance floor surfaces by leaving a protective coating that is designed to be

periodically replenished. “Floor Polish or Wax” does not include “spray buff products”,

products designed solely for the purpose of cleaning floors, floor finish strippers, 

products designed for unfinished wood floors, and coatings subject to architectural

coatings regulations.

(50) “Floor Seam Sealer” means any product designed and labeled exclusively for bonding,

fusing, or sealing (coating) seams between adjoining rolls of installed flexible sheet

flooring.

(5149) “Floor Wax Stripper” means a product designed to remove natural or synthetic floor

polishes or waxes through breakdown of the polish or wax polymers, or by dissolving or

emulsifying the polish or wax. “Floor Wax Stripper” does not include aerosol floor wax

strippers or products designed to remove floor wax solely through abrasion.

(5250) “Flying Bug Insecticide” means any insecticide product that is designed for use against

flying insects or other flying arthropods, including but not limited to flies, mosquitoes,

moths, or gnats. “Flying Bug Insecticide” does not include “wasp and hornet insecticide”,

products that are designed to be used exclusively on humans or animals, or any mothproofing product. For the purposes of this definition only, “moth-proofing product”

means a product whose label, packaging, or accompanying literature indicates that the

product is designed to protect fabrics from damage by moths, but does not indicate that

the product is suitable for use against flying insects or other flying arthropods.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 10

(5351) “Fragrance” means a substance or complex mixture of aroma chemicals, natural essential

oils, and other functional components with a combined vapor pressure not in excess of 

2 mm of Hg at 20 C, the sole purpose of which is to impart an odor or scent, or to o

counteract a malodor.

(5452) “Furniture Maintenance Product” means a wax, polish, conditioner, or any other product

designed for the purpose of polishing, protecting or enhancing finished wood surfaces

other than floors. “Furniture Maintenance Product” does not include dusting aids,

products designed solely for the purpose of cleaning, and products designed to leave a

permanent finish such as stains, sanding sealers and lacquers.

(5553) “Furniture Coating” means any paint designed for application to room furnishings

including, but not limited to, cabinets (kitchen, bath and vanity), tables, chairs, beds, and

sofas.

(5654) “Gel” means a colloid in which the disperse phase has combined with the continuous phase

to produce a semisolid material, such as jelly.

(5755) “General Purpose Adhesive” means any non-aerosol adhesive designed for use on a variety of

substrates. “General Purpose Adhesive” does not include (A) contact adhesives, (B)

construction, and panel, and floor covering adhesives, (C) adhesives designed exclusively for

application on one specific category of substrates (i.e., substrates that are composed of similar

materials, such as different types of metals, paper products, ceramics, plastics, rubbers, or

vinyls), or (D) adhesives designed exclusively for use on one specific category of articles (i.e.,

articles that may be composed of different materials but perform a specific function, such as

gaskets, automotive trim, weather-stripping, or carpets).

(5856) “General Purpose Cleaner” means a product designed for general all-purpose cleaning, in

contrast to cleaning products designed to clean specific substrates in certain situations. 

“General Purpose Cleaner” includes products designed for general floor cleaning, kitchen or

countertop cleaning, and cleaners designed to be used on a variety of hard surfaces.

(5957) “General Purpose Degreaser” means any product designed 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”, “Metallic Parts Cleaner”, “Adhesive Remover”,

“Electronic Cleaner”, or “Metal Polish/Cleanser”, products used exclusively in “solvent

cleaning tanks or related equipment,” or products that are (A) sold exclusively to

establishments which manufacture or construct goods or commodities; and (B) labeled “not

for retail sale”. “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. 

(6058) “General-use Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” means a cleaner or soap designed to be
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 11

used routinely on the skin to clean or remove typical or common dirt and soils. “Generaluse Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” includes, but is not limited to, hand or body washes,

dual-purpose shampoo-body cleaners, shower or bath gels, and moisturizing cleaners or

soaps. “General-use Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” does not include prescription drug

products, “Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap”, “Astringent/Toner”, “Facial

Cleaner or Soap”, “Hand Dishwashing Detergent” (including antimicrobial), “Heavy-duty

 Hand Cleaner or Soap”, “Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner”, or “Rubbing

Alcohol.”

(6159) “Glass Cleaner” means a cleaning product designed primarily for cleaning surfaces made

of glass. Glass cleaner does not include products designed solely for the purpose of

cleaning optical materials used in eyeglasses, photographic equipment, scientific

equipment and photocopying machines.

(6261) “Hair Mousse” means a hairstyling foam designed to facilitate styling of a coiffure and

provide limited holding power.

(6362) “Hair Shine” means any product designed for the primary purpose of creating a shine

when applied to the hair. “Hair Shine” includes, but is not limited to, dual-use products

designed primarily to impart a sheen to the hair. “Hair Shine” does not include

“Hairspray”, “Hair Mousse”, “Hair Styling Gel” or spray gel, or products whose primary

purpose is to condition or hold the hair.

(6463) “Hair Styling Gel” means a high viscosity, often gelatinous, product that contains a resin

and is designed for the application to hair to aid in styling and sculpting of the hair

coiffure.

(6560) “Hairspray” means a consumer product designed primarily for the purpose of dispensing

droplets of a resin on and into a hair coiffure which will impart sufficient rigidity to the

coiffure to establish or retain the style for a period of time.

(6664) “Heavy-Duty Hand Cleaner or Soap” means a product designed to clean or remove

difficult dirt and soils such as oil, grease, grime, tar, shellac, putty, printer’s ink, paint,

graphite, cement, carbon, asphalt, or adhesives from the hand with or without the use of

water. “Heavy-duty Hand Cleaner or Soap” does not include prescription drug products,

“Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap”, “Astringent/Toner”, “Facial Cleaner or

Soap”, “General-use Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap”, “Medicated Astringent/Medicated

Toner” or “Rubbing Alcohol.”

(6765) “Herbicide” means a pesticide product designed to kill or retard a plant’s growth,

but excludes products that are: (A) for agricultural use, or (B) restricted materials

that require a permit for use and possession.

(6866) “Household Product” means any consumer product that is primarily designed to be used
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 12

inside or outside of living quarters or residences that are occupied or intended for

occupation by individuals, including the immediate surroundings.

(67) “Household Sealants and Caulking Compounds” means any product designed to fill in

cracks, close or secure an object, or to prevent seepage of moisture or air.

(6968) “Insect Repellent” means a pesticide product that is designed to be applied on human skin,

hair or attire worn on humans in order to prevent contact with or repel biting insects or

arthropods.

(7069) “Insecticide” means a pesticide product that is designed for use against insects or other

arthropods, but excluding products that are: (A) for agricultural use, or (B) for a use

which requires a structural pest control license under Chapter 14 (commencing with 

Section 8500) of the Business and Professions Code, or (C) restricted materials that

require a permit for use and possession.

(7170) “Insecticide Fogger” means any insecticide product designed to release all or most of its

content, as a fog or mist, into indoor areas during a single application.

(7271) “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

incorporated into or used exclusively in the manufacture or construction of the goods or

commodities at the site of the establishment.

(7372) “Label” means any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to, applied to, attached to,

blown into, formed, molded into, embossed on, or appearing upon any consumer product

or consumer product package, for purposes of branding, identifying, or giving information

with respect to the product or to the contents of the package.

(7473) “Laundry Prewash” means a product that is designed for application to a fabric prior to

laundering and that supplements and contributes to the effectiveness of laundry detergents

and/or provides specialized performance.

(7574) “Laundry Starch Product” means a product that is designed for application to a fabric,

either during or after laundering, to impart and prolong a crisp, fresh look and may also 
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 13

act to help ease ironing of the fabric. “Laundry Starch Product” includes, but is not

limited to, fabric finish, sizing, and starch.

(7675) “Lawn and Garden Insecticide” means an insecticide product designed primarily to be

used in household lawn and garden areas to protect plants from insects or other

arthropods.

(7776) “Liquid” means a substance or mixture of substances which is capable of a visually

detectable flow as determined under ASTM D-4359-90. “Liquid” does not include

powders or other materials that are composed entirely of solid particles.

(7877) “Lubricant” means a product designed to reduce friction, heat, noise, or wear between

moving parts, or to loosen rusted or 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 (1) sold exclusively to establishments which manufacture

or construct goods or commodities, and (2) labeled “not for retail sale”. 

(7978) “LVP-VOC” means any compound a chemical “compound” or “mixture” that which

contains at least one carbon atom and has either meets one of the following:

(A) has a vapor pressure less than 0.1 mm Hg at 20 C, or as determined by ARB Method o

310; or

(B) more than 12 carbon atoms, if the vapor pressure is unknown. is a chemical

“compound” with more than 12 carbon atoms, or a chemical “mixture” comprised

solely of “compounds” with more than 12 carbon atoms, and the vapor pressure is

unknown; or

(C) is a chemical “compound” with a boiling point greater than 216 C, as determined o

by ARB Method 310; or

(D) is the weight percent of a chemical “mixture” that boils above 216 C, as determined o

by ARB Method 310.

For the purposes of the definition of LVP-VOC, chemical “compound” means a

molecule of definite chemical formula and isomeric structure, and chemical “mixture”

means a substrate comprised of two or more chemical “compounds”.

(8079) “Manufacturer” means any person who imports, manufactures, assembles, produces,

packages, repackages, or relabels a consumer product.

(8180) “Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner” means any product regulated as a drug by the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which is applied to the skin for the purpose of

cleaning or tightening pores. “Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner” includes, but is

not limited to, clarifiers and substrate-impregnated products. “Medicated
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 14

Astringent/Medicated Toner” does not include hand, face, or body cleaner or soap

products, “Personal Fragrance Products”, “Astringent/Toner,” cold cream, lotion,

antiperspirants, or products that must be purchased with a doctor’s prescription.

(81) “Metallic Parts Cleaner” means any organic liquid that is designed to dissolve grease, dirt

and other contaminants solely from miscellaneous metallic parts. “Metallic Parts Cleaner”

does not include “Metal Polish/Cleanser”. 

(82) “Metal Polish/Cleanser” means any product designed primarily to improve the appearance

of finished metal, metallic, or metallized surfaces by physical or chemical action. To

“improve the appearance” means to remove or reduce stains, impurities, or oxidation from

surfaces or to make surfaces smooth and shiny. “Metal Polish/Cleanser” includes, but is

not limited to, metal polishes used on brass, silver, chrome, copper, stainless steel and

other ornamental metals. “Metal Polish/Cleanser” does not include “Automotive Wax,

Polish, Sealant or Glaze”, wheel cleaner, “Paint Remover or Stripper”, products designed

and labeled exclusively for automotive and marine detailing, or products designed for use

in degreasing tanks.

(83) “Multi-purpose Dry Lubricant” means any lubricant which is: (A) designed and labeled to

provide lubricity by depositing a thin film of graphite, molybdenum disulfide (“moly”), or

polytetrafluoroethylene or closely related fluoropolymer (“teflon”) on surfaces, and (B)

designed for general purpose lubrication, or for use in a wide variety of applications.

(84) “Multi-purpose Lubricant” means any lubricant designed for general purpose lubrication,

or for use in a wide variety of applications. “Multi-purpose Lubricant” does not include

“Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants”, “Penetrants”, or “Silicone-based Multi-purpose

Lubricants”.

(85) “Multi-purpose Solvent” means any organic liquid designed to be used for a variety of

purposes, including cleaning or degreasing of a variety of substrates, or thinning,

dispersing or dissolving other organic materials. “Multi-purpose Solvent” includes

solvents used in institutional facilities, except for laboratory reagents used in analytical,

educational, research, scientific or other laboratories. “Multi-purpose Solvent” does not

include solvents used in cold cleaners, vapor degreasers, conveyorized degreasers or film

cleaning machines, or solvents that are incorporated into, or used exclusively in the

manufacture or construction of, the goods or commodities at the site of the establishment.

(86) “Nail Polish” means any clear or colored coating designed for application to the

fingernails or toenails and including but not limited to, lacquers, enamels, acrylics, base

coats and top coats.

(87) “Nail Polish Remover” means a product designed to remove nail polish and coatings from

fingernails or toenails.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 15

(88) “Non-Carbon Containing Compound” means any compound which does not contain any

carbon atoms.

(89) “Nonresilient Flooring” means flooring of a mineral content which is not flexible. 

“Nonresilient Flooring” includes terrazzo, marble, slate, granite, brick, stone, ceramic tile

and concrete.

(90) “Non-Selective Terrestrial Herbicide” means a terrestrial herbicide product that is toxic to

plants without regard to species.

(91) “Oven Cleaner” means any cleaning product designed to clean and to remove dried food

deposits from oven walls.

(92) “Paint” means any pigmented liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition designed for

application to a substrate in a thin layer which is converted to an opaque solid film after

application and is used for protection, decoration or identification, or to serve some

functional purpose such as the filling or concealing of surface irregularities or the

modification of light and heat radiation characteristics.

(93) “Paint Remover or Stripper” means any product designed to strip or remove paints or

other related coatings, by chemical action, from a substrate without markedly affecting the

substrate. “Paint Remover or Stripper” does not include “Multi-purpose Solvents”, paint

brush cleaners, products designed and labeled exclusively to remove graffiti, and hand

cleaner products that claim to remove paints and other related coatings from skin.

(94) “Penetrant” means a lubricant designed and labeled primarily to loosen metal parts that

have bonded together due to rusting, oxidation, or other causes. “Penetrant” does not

include “Multi-purpose Lubricants” that claim to have penetrating qualities, but are not

labeled primarily to loosen bonded parts.

(95) “Person” shall have the same meaning as defined in Health and Safety Code 

Section 39047.

(96) “Personal Fragrance Product” means any product which is applied to the human body or

clothing for the primary purpose of adding a scent or masking a malodor, including

cologne, perfume, aftershave, and toilet water. “Personal Fragrance Product” does not

include: (A) products exclusively for human axillae; (B) medicated products designed

primarily to alleviate fungal or bacterial growth on feet or other areas of the body; 

(C) mouthwashes, breath fresheners and deodorizers; (D) lotions, moisturizers, powders

or other skin care products used primarily to alleviate skin conditions such as dryness and

irritations; (E) products designed exclusively for use on human genitalia; (F) soaps,

shampoos, and products primarily used to clean the human body; and (G) fragrance

products designed to be used exclusively on non-human animals.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 16

(97) “Pesticide” means and includes any substance or mixture of substances labeled, designed,

or intended for use in preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest, or any

substance or mixture of substances labeled, designed, or intended for use as a defoliant,

desiccant, or plant regulator, provided that the term “pesticide” will not include any

substance, mixture of substances, or device which the United States Environmental

Protection Agency does not consider to be a pesticide.

(98) “Principal Display Panel or Panels” means that part, or those parts of a label that are so

designed as to most likely be displayed, presented, shown or examined under normal and

customary conditions of display or purchase. Whenever a principal display panel appears

more than once, all requirements pertaining to the “principal display panel” shall pertain to

all such “principal display panels”.

(99) “Product Brand Name” means the name of the product exactly as it appears on the

principal display panel of the product.

(100) “Product Category” means the applicable category which best describes the product as

listed in this Section 94508.

(101) “Product Form”, for the purpose of complying with Section 94513 only, means the

applicable form which most accurately describes the product's dispensing form as follows:

A = Aerosol Product

S = Solid

P = Pump Spray

L = Liquid

G = Gel

O = Other

(102) “Propellant” means a liquefied or compressed gas that is used in whole or in part, such as

a cosolvent, to expel a liquid or any other material from the same self-pressurized

container or from a separate container.

(103) “Pump Spray” means a packaging system in which the product ingredients within the

container are not under pressure and in which the product is expelled only while a

pumping action is applied to a button, trigger or other actuator.

(104) “Responsible Party” means the company, firm or establishment which is listed on the 

product's label. If the label lists two companies, firms or establishments, the responsible

party is the party which the product was “manufactured for” or “distributed by”, as noted

on the label.

(105) “Restricted Materials” means pesticides established as restricted materials under 

Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6400.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 17

(106) “Retailer” means any person who sells, supplies, or offers consumer products for sale

directly to consumers.

(107) “Retail Outlet” means any establishment at which consumer products are sold, supplied,

or offered for sale directly to consumers.

(108) “Rubber and Vinyl Protectant” means any product designed to protect, preserve or renew

vinyl, rubber, and plastic on vehicles, tires, luggage, furniture, and household products

such as vinyl covers, clothing, and accessories. “Rubber and Vinyl Protectant” does not

include products primarily designed to clean the wheel rim, such as aluminum or

magnesium wheel cleaners, and tire cleaners that do not leave an appearance-enhancing or

protective substance on the tire.

(109) “Rubbing Alcohol” means any product containing isopropyl alcohol (also called

isopropanol) or denatured ethanol and labeled for topical use, usually to decrease germs in

minor cuts and scrapes, to relieve minor muscle aches, as a rubefacient, and for massage.

(110) “Sealant and Caulking Compound” means any product with adhesive properties that is

designed to fill, seal, waterproof, or weatherproof gaps or joints between two surfaces. 

“Sealant and Caulking Compound” does not include roof cements and roof sealants;

insulating foams; removable caulking compounds; clear/paintable/water resistant caulking

compounds; floor seam sealers; products designed exclusively for automotive uses; or

sealers that are applied as continuous coatings. “Sealant and Caulking Compound” also

does not include units of product, less packaging, which weigh more than one pound and

consist of more than 16 fluid ounces. For the purposes of this definition only, “removable

caulking compounds” means a compound which temporarily seals windows or doors for

three to six month time intervals, and “clear/paintable/water resistant caulking

compounds” means a compound which contains no appreciable level of opaque fillers or

pigments; transmits most or all visible light through the caulk when cured; is paintable;

and is immediately resistant to precipitation upon application.

(111110) “Semisolid” means a product that, at room temperature, will not pour, but will spread

or deform easily, including gels, pastes, and greases.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 18

(112111) “Shaving Cream” means an aerosol product which dispenses a foam lather intended to

be used with a blade or cartridge razor, or other wet-shaving system, in the removal of

facial or other bodily hair.

(113112) “Silicone-based Multi-purpose Lubricant” means any lubricant which is: 

(A) designed and labeled to provide lubricity primarily through the use of silicone

compounds including, but not limited to, polydimethylsiloxane, and (B) designed and

labeled for general purpose lubrication, or for use in a wide variety of applications. 

“Silicone-based Multi-purpose Lubricant” does not include products designed and

labeled exclusively to release manufactured products from molds.

(114113) “Single Phase Aerosol Air Freshener” means an aerosol air freshener with the liquid

contents in a single homogeneous phase and which does not require that the product

container be shaken before use.

(115114) “Solid” means a substance or mixture of substances which, either whole or subdivided

(such as the particles comprising a powder), is not capable of visually detectable flow

as determined under ASTM D-4359-90.

(116115) “Spot Remover” means any product designed to clean localized areas, or remove

localized spots or stains on cloth or fabric such as drapes, carpets, upholstery, and

clothing, that does not require subsequent laundering to achieve stain removal. “Spot

Remover” does not include “Dry Cleaning Fluid”, “Laundry Prewash”, “Carpet and

Upholstery Cleaner”, or “Multi-purpose Solvent”.

(117116) “Spray Buff Product” means a product designed to restore a worn floor finish in

conjunction with a floor buffing machine and special pad.

(118117) “Table B Compound” means any carbon-containing compound listed as an exception

to the definition of VOC in Section 94508.

(119118) “Terrestrial” means to live on or grow from land.

(120) “Tire Sealant and Inflator” means any pressurized product that is designed to temporarily

inflate and seal a leaking tire.

(121119) “Type A Propellent” means a compressed gas such as CO2, N2, N2O, or compressed

air which is used as a propellent, and is either incorporated with the product or

contained in a separate chamber within the product's packaging.

(122120) “Type B Propellent” means any halocarbon which is used as a propellent including

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 19

(123121) “Type C Propellent” means any propellent which is not a Type A or Type B

propellent, including propane, isobutane, n-butane, and dimethyl ether (also known as

dimethyl oxide).

(124122) “Undercoating” means any aerosol product designed to impart a protective, non-paint

layer to the undercarriage, trunk interior, and/or firewall of motor vehicles to prevent

the formation of rust or to deaden sound. “Undercoating” includes, but is not limited

to, rubberized, mastic, or asphaltic products.

(125123) “Usage Directions” means the text or graphics on the product's principal display

panel, label, or accompanying literature which describes to the end user how and in

what quantity the product is to be used.

(126124) “Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)” means any compound containing at least one

atom of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic

carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, and excluding the following:

(A) methane,

methylene chloride (dichloromethane),

1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform),

trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11),

dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12),

1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113),

1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114),

chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115),

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22),

1,1,1-trifluoro-2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123),

1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b),

1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b),

2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124),

trifluoromethane (HFC-23),

1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134),

1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a),

pentafluoroethane (HFC-125),

1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a),

1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a),

cyclic, branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes,

the following classes of perfluorocarbons:

1. cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes;

2. cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no

unsaturations;

3. cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no

unsaturations; and

4. sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with the

sulfur bonds to carbon and fluorine, and

(B) the following low-reactive organic compounds which have been exempted by the
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 20

U.S. EPA:

acetone,

ethane,

methyl acetate,

parachlorobenzotrifluoride (1-chloro-4-trifluoromethyl benzene),

perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene).

(127125) “VOC Content” means the total weight of VOC in a product expressed as a

percentage of the product weight (exclusive of the container or packaging), as

determined pursuant to sections 94515(a) and (b).

(128126) “Wasp and Hornet Insecticide” means any insecticide product that is designed for use

against wasps, hornets, yellow jackets or bees by allowing the user to spray from a

distance a directed stream or burst at the intended insects, or their hiding place.

(129) “Waterproofer” means a product designed and labeled exclusively to repel water from 

fabric or leather substrates. “Waterproofer” does not include “Fabric Protectants”.

(130127) “Wax” means a material or synthetic thermoplastic substance generally of high

molecular weight hydrocarbons or high molecular weight esters of fatty acids or

alcohols, except glycerol and high polymers (plastics). “Wax” includes, but is not

limited to, substances derived from the secretions of plants and animals such as

carnuba wax and beeswax, substances of a mineral origin such as ozocerite and

paraffin, and synthetic polymers such as polyethylene.

131128) “Wood Floor Wax” means wax-based products for use solely on wood floors.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 21

94509. Standards for Consumer Products

(a) Except as provided in Sections 94510 (Exemptions), 94511 (Innovative Products), 94514

(Variances), 94540 through 94555 (Alternative Control Plan), and 94567(a)(1)

(Hairspray Credit Program), Title 17, California Code of Regulations, no person shall sell,

supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for sale in California any consumer product which,

at the time of sale or manufacture, contains volatile organic compounds in excess of the

limits specified in the following Table of Standards after the specified effective dates.

[NOTE: In the interest of clarity we have redesigned the Table of Standards. Previously, the

product categories subject to regulation were separated into three groups (Phase I, Phase II,

and Phase III) based on the rulemaking actions in which standards were first adopted for

each category. In the redesigned Table of Standards shown below, the product categories

subject to regulation are presented in alphabetical order. All text shown in underline and

strikeout are new amendments that are being made to the Table of Standards for the first time

in the current, Mid-term Measures II rulemaking action.]
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 22

Table of Standards

Percent Volatile Organic Compound by Weight

Product Category Effective Date VOC 1

Standard 2

Adhesives *:

 aerosol 

[See 94509(i) for additional requirements that apply to

aerosol adhesives.] **

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 construction, and panel, and floor covering*** 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 contact

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 

 general purpose

==========================================

* See section 94510(i) for an exemption that applies to

adhesives sold in containers of one fluid ounce or less.

** The Board will hold a public hearing by June 1, 2000,

to review and consider any appropriate modifications to

the 25 percent VOC limit for aerosol adhesives.

*** See section 94509(k) for the effective date of the

VOC limit for certain types of “construction, panel, and

floor covering adhesives.”

1/1/95 75

1/1/2002 25

------------------ ------------------

1/1/95 40

12/31/2002 15

------------------ ------------------

1/1/95 80

------------------ -----------------

1/1/95 10

=========== =========

Aerosol Cooking Sprays 1/1/95 18
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 23

Product Category Effective VOC

Date Standard 1 2

Air Fresheners*:

 double phase aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- single phase aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 dual purpose air fresheners/disinfectant aerosols 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 liquid/pump sprays

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 solids/gels

==========================================

 * See sections 94510(f) and 94510(g) for exemptions that

apply to certain air fresheners.

1/1/93 30

12/31/2004 20

------------------ ------------------

1/1/93 70

1/1/96 30

------------------ ------------------

1/1/94 60

------------------ ------------------

1/1/93 18

------------------ ------------------

1/1/93 3

=========== ===========

Automotive Brake Cleaners 1/1/97 50

12/31/2002 45

Automotive Rubbing or Polishing Compounds 1/1/2005 17

Automotive Wax/Polish/Sealant/Glaze:

 all other forms

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 hard paste waxes

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 instant detailers

1/1/2005 15

------------------ ------------------

1/1/2005 45

------------------ ------------------

1/1/2001 3
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 24

Product Category Effective Date VOC 1

Standard 2

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids:

 Type “A” areas* 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 All other areas (all forms)

 Dilutable

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 Pre-Mixed

==========================================

* Type “A” areas include only the following: Del Norte, Shasta and

Trinity Counties; the Great Basin Valley, Lake Tahoe, Mountain

Counties, and Northeast Plateau Air Basins, as defined in Title 17,

California Code of Regulations, Sections 60105, 60108, 60111, and

60113.

1/1/93 35

------------------- ------------------

- 10

1/1/93 1 [after dilution

12/31/2002

-------------------

12/31/2002

==========

as specified in

section

94509(b)(1)

------------------

1 (as packaged in

container)

===========

Bathroom and Tile Cleaners:

 aerosols 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 all other forms

1/1/94 7

------------------ ------------------

1/1/94 5

Bug and Tar Remover 1/1/2002 40

Carburetor /Choke Cleaners or Fuel-injection Air

Intake Cleaners **

==========================================

** See section 94509(k) for the effective date of the VOC limit for

fuel-injection air intake cleaners.

1/1/95 75

12/31/2002 45

Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner:

 aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols (dilutables)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols (ready-to-use)

1/1/2001 7

------------------ ------------------

1/1/2001

------------------

1/1/2001

.1

------------------

3
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 25

Charcoal Lighter Material See 94509(h)
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 26

Product Category Effective Date VOC 1

Standard 2

Dusting Aids:

 aerosol

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 all other forms

1/1/95 35

1/1/97 25

------------------ ------------------

1/1/95 7

Engine Degreasers (all forms):

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 

 aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols

1/1/93 75

1/1/96 50

------------------ ------------------

12/31/2004 35

------------------ ------------------

12/31/2004 5

Fabric Protectants 1/1/95 75

1/1/97 60

Floor Polishes/Waxes: 

 products for flexible flooring materials

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 products for nonresilient flooring

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 wood floor wax

1/1/94 7

------------------ ------------------

1/1/94 10

------------------ ------------------

1/1/94 90

Floor Wax Stripper:

 non-aerosols

See Section

94509(j)

Furniture Maintenance Products:

 aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 all other forms (except solid/paste forms)

1/1/94 25

12/31/2004 17

------------------ ------------------

1/1/94 7
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 27

General Purpose Cleaners (all forms):

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols (dilutables)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols (ready-to-use)

1/1/94 10

------------------- ------------------

- 1

12/31/2004 ------------------

------------------- 3

-

12/31/2004
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 28

Product Category Effective Date VOC 1

Standard 2

General Purpose Degreasers:

 aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols (dilutables)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols (ready-to-use)

1/1/2002 50

------------------ ------------------

1/1/2001 10

12/31/2004 1

------------------- ------------------

- 10

1/1/2001 3

12/31/2004

Glass Cleaners:

 aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 all other forms

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols (dilutables)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols (ready-to-use)

1/1/93 12

------------------ ------------------

1/1/93 8

1/1/96 6

------------------- ------------------

- 1

12/31/2004 ------------------

------------------- 4

-

12/31/2004

Hair Mousses 1/1/94 16

12/31/2002 6

Hair Shine 1/1/2005 55

Hair Styling Gels 1/1/94 6

Hairsprays 1/1/93 80

6/1/99 55

Heavy-duty Hand Cleaners or Soap 1/1/2005 8

Insect Repellents:

 aerosols 1/1/94 65
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 29

Product Category Effective Date VOC 1

Standard 2

Insecticides*:

 crawling bug (all forms):

 aerosol crawling bug insecticides

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 flea and tick

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 flying bug (all forms):

 aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 foggers

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 lawn and garden (all forms)

 non-aerosol lawn and garden insecticides

==========================================

* See sections 94510(g) and 94510(k) for exemptions that apply to

certain insecticides.

1/1/95 40

1/1/98 20

12/31/2004 15

------------------ ------------------

1/1/95 25

------------------ ------------------

1/1/95 35

12/31/2003 25

------------------ ------------------

1/1/95 45

------------------ ------------------

1/1/95 20

12/31/2003 3

=========== ===========

Laundry Prewash:

 aerosols/solids

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 all other forms

1/1/94 22

------------------ ------------------

1/1/94 5

Laundry Starch Products 1/1/95 5

Metal Polish/Cleanser 1/1/2005 30

Multi-purpose Lubricant:

 (excluding solid or semisolid products) 1/1/2003 50

Nail Polish Removers 1/1/94 85

1/1/96 75

12/31/2004 0

Non-selective Terrestrial Herbicide:

 non-aerosols 1/1/2002 3
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 30

Product Category Effective Date VOC 1

Standard 2

Oven Cleaners:

 aerosols/pump sprays

 --------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 liquids

1/1/93 8

------------------- ------------------

- 5

1/1/93

Paint Remover or Stripper 1/1/2005 50

Penetrant 1/1/2003 50

Personal Fragrance Products*:

 products with 20% or less fragrance

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 products with more than 20% fragrance

==========================================

*See sections 94510(h), 94510(j), and 94510(l) for exemptions that

apply to personal fragrance products.

1/1/95 80

1/1/99 75

------------------ ------------------

1/1/95 70

1/1/99 65

=========== ===========

Rubber and Vinyl Protectant:

 aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols

1/1/2005 10

------------------ ------------------

1/1/2003 3

Sealants and Caulking Compounds 12/31/2002 4

Shaving Creams 1/1/94 5

Silicone-based Multi-purpose Lubricant:

 (excluding solid or semisolid products)

1/1/2005 60

Spot Remover:

 aerosols

---------------------------------------------------------------------

--

 non-aerosols

1/1/2001 25

------------------ ------------------

1/1/2001 8
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 31

Product Category Effective Date VOC 1

Standard 2

Tire Sealants and Inflators 12/31/2002 20

Undercoating:

 aerosols 1/1/2002 40

Wasp and Hornet Insecticide 1/1/2005 40

See section 94509(d) for the effective date of the VOC standards for products registered under 1

FIFRA, and section 94509(c) for the “Sell-through” allowed for products manufactured prior

to the effective date of standards.

See section 94510(c) for an exemption that applies to fragrances in consumer products, and 2

section 94510(d) for an exemption that applies to LVP-VOCs. 

Table of Standards

(Phase I)

Percent Volatile Organic Compounds by Weight

 Future Effective

Product Category 1/1/93 1/1/94 (Date)

Air Fresheners

Single Phase Aerosols 70 30

(1/1/96)

Double Phase Aerosols 30

Liquids/Pump Sprays 18

Solids/Gels 3

Dual Purpose Air Freshener/

 Disinfectant Aerosols 60

Automotive Windshield

 Washer Fluids:

Type A Areas* 35

All Other Areas 10

Bathroom and Tile Cleaners

Aerosols 7

All Other Forms 5

Engine Degreasers 75 50

(1/1/96)

 Floor Polishes/Waxes

Products for Flexible

 Flooring Materials 7

Products for Nonresilient

 Flooring 10

Wood Floor Wax 90

Furniture Maintenance Products

Aerosols 25

All Other Forms Except

 Solid or Paste Forms 7

General Purpose Cleaners 10
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 32

Glass Cleaners

Aerosols 12

All Other Forms 8 6

(1/1/96)

Hairsprays 80 55

 (6/1/99)

Hair Mousses 16

Hair Styling Gels 6

Insect Repellents

Aerosols 65

Laundry Prewash

Aerosols/Solids 22

All Other Forms 5

________________

* Type A Areas include only the following: Del Norte, Shasta and Trinity Counties; the Great

Basin Valley, Lake Tahoe, Mountain Counties, and Northeast Plateau Air Basins, as defined in

Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 60105, 60108, 60111, and 60113.

Table of Standards

(Phase I) (continued)

Percent Volatile Organic Compounds by Weight

 Future Effective

Product Category 1/1/93 1/1/94 (Date)

Nail Polish Removers 85 75

(1/1/96)

Oven Cleaners

Aerosols/Pump Sprays 8

Liquids 5

Shaving Creams 5

=====================================================================

Table of Standards

(Phase II)

Percent Volatile Organic Compounds by Weight

 Future Effective

Product Category 1/1/95 (Date)

Adhesives

Aerosol [See 94509(i)] 75 25

(1/1/2002)*

Contact 80

Construction and Panel 40

General Purpose 10

Aerosol Cooking Sprays 18

Automotive Brake Cleaners 50

(1/1/97)

Charcoal Lighter Material See 94509(h)

Carburetor-Choke Cleaners 75

Dusting Aids
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 33

Aerosol 35 25

(1/1/97)

All Other Forms 7

Fabric Protectants 75 60

(1/1/97)

Insecticides

Crawling Bug 40 20

(1/1/98)

Flea and Tick 25

Flying Bug 35

Foggers 45

Lawn and Garden 20

Laundry Starch Products 5

Personal Fragrance Products

Products with 20% or

 less fragrance 80 75

(1/1/99)

Products with more than

 20% fragrance 70 65

(1/1/99)

________________

* The Board will hold a public hearing by June 1, 2000, to review and consider any appropriate

modifications to the 25 percent VOC standard for aerosol adhesives.

====================================================================

====================================================================

Table of Standards

(Phase III)

Percent Volatile Organic Compounds by Weight

Product Category 1/1/2001 1/1/2002 1/1/2003 1/1/2005

Automotive Rubbing or 

Polishing Compound 17

Automotive Wax, Polish,

Sealant or Glaze

Hard Paste Waxes 45

Instant Detailers 3

All Other Forms 15

Bug and Tar Remover 40

Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner

Aerosols 7

Non-aerosols (dilutables) .1 

Non-aerosols (ready-to-use) 3

Floor Wax Stripper (See 94509(j))

(non-aerosols)

General Purpose Degreaser

Aerosols 50

Non-aerosols 10

Hair Shine 55

Heavy-duty Hand Cleaner 

or Soap 8

Metal Polish/Cleanser 30
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 34

Multi-purpose Lubricant

(excluding solid or

semisolid products) 50

Non-selective Terrestrial 

Herbicide, Non-aerosols 3

Paint Remover or Stripper 50

Penetrant 50

Rubber and Vinyl

Protectant

 Non-aerosols 3

 Aerosols 10

Silicone-based Multi-purpose

Lubricant (excluding solid or

semisolid products) 60

Spot Remover

Aerosols 25

Non-aerosols 8

Undercoating

Aerosols 40

Wasp and Hornet 

 Insecticide 40

=====================================================================

(b) Products that are diluted prior to use

(1) For consumer products for which the label, packaging, or accompanying literature

specifically states that the product should be diluted with water or non-VOC solvent prior

to use, the limits specified in subsection (a) shall apply to the product only after the

minimum recommended dilution has taken place. For purposes of this subsection (b),

“minimum recommended dilution” shall not include recommendations for incidental use of a

concentrated product to deal with limited special applications such as hard-to-remove soils

or stains. The provisions of this subsection (b)(1) shall not apply to automotive windshield

washer fluid products sold in containers with a capacity greater than one quart.

(2) For consumer products for which the label, packaging, or accompanying literature states

that the product should be diluted with any VOC solvent prior to use, the limits specified in

subsection (a) shall apply to the product only after the maximum recommended dilution has

taken place.

(c) Sell-through of products. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 94509(a) or 94509(j),

a consumer product manufactured prior to each of the effective dates specified for that

product in the Table of Standards may be sold, supplied, or offered for sale for up to three

years after each of the specified effective dates. This subsection (c) does not apply to any

consumer product which does not display on the product container or package the date on

which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating such date.

(d) Products registered under FIFRA. For those consumer products that are registered under
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 35

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. Section

136-136y), the effective date of the VOC standards specified in subsection (a) is one year

after the date specified in the Table of Standards. For those consumer products that are

registered under FIFRA, the three year period provided in subsection (c) shall also begin

one year after the date specified in the Table of Standards.

(e) Products containing ozone-depleting compounds. For any consumer product for which

standards are specified under subsection (a), no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or

manufacture for sale in California any consumer product which contains any of the

following ozone-depleting compounds: 

CFC-11 (trichlorofluoromethane), CFC-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane), 

CFC-113 (1,1,1-trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane), 

CFC-114 (1-chloro-1,1-difluoro-2-chloro-2,2-difluoroethane), 

CFC-115 (chloropentafluoroethane), halon 1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane), 

halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane), halon 2402 (dibromotetrafluoroethane), 

HCFC-22 (chlorodifluoromethane), HCFC-123 (2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane), 

HCFC-124 (2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane), 

HCFC-141b (1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane), HCFC-142b (1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane),

1,1,1-trichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.

(f) The requirements of section 94509(e) shall not apply to any existing product formulation

that complies with the Table of Standards or any existing product formulation that is

reformulated to meet the Table of Standards, provided the ozone depleting compound

content of the reformulated product does not increase.

(g) The requirements of section 94509(e) shall not apply to any ozone depleting compounds

that may be present as impurities in a consumer product in an amount equal to or less than

0.01% by weight of the product.

(h) Requirements for charcoal lighter materials. The following requirements shall apply to all

charcoal lighter material products as defined in section 94508(a)(24):

(1) Regulatory Standards

(A) In all areas of California except the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 

no person shall sell, supply, or offer for sale after January 1, 1993 any charcoal

lighter material product unless at the time of the transaction:

1. the manufacturer or distributor of the charcoal lighter material has been issued

a currently effective certification pursuant to subsection (h)(2). 

2. the charcoal lighter material meets the formulation criteria and other

conditions specified in the applicable Executive Order issued pursuant to

subsection (h)(2).

3. the product usage directions for the charcoal lighter material are the same as
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 36

those provided to the Executive Officer pursuant to subsection (h)(2)(C).

(B) In the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the regulatory standards

specified in subsection (h)(1)(A) shall be applicable upon the effective date of this

subsection.

(2) Certification Requirements

(A) No charcoal lighter material formulation shall be certified under this subsection unless

the applicant for certification demonstrates to the Executive Officer's satisfaction that

the VOC emissions from the ignition of charcoal with the charcoal lighter material

are less than or equal to 0.020 pound of VOC per start, using the procedures

specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1174 Ignition

Method Compliance Certification Protocol, dated February 27, 1991 (the

“SCAQMD Rule 1174 Testing Protocol”). The provisions relating to LVP-VOC in

sections 94508(a)(78) and 94510(d) shall not apply to any charcoal lighter material

subject to the requirements of sections 94509(a) and (h).

(B) The Executive Officer may approve alternative test procedures which are shown to

provide equivalent results to those obtained using the SCAQMD Rule 1174 Testing

Protocol.

The application shall be in writing and shall include, at a minimum, the following:

1. the results of testing conducted pursuant to the procedures specified in

SCAQMD Rule 1174 Testing Protocol.

2. the exact text and/or graphics that will appear on the charcoal lighter material's

principal display panel, label, and any accompanying literature. The provided

material shall clearly show the usage directions for the product. These directions

shall accurately reflect the quantity of charcoal lighter material per pound of 

charcoal that was used in the SCAQMD Rule 1174 Testing Protocol for that

product, unless:

i) the charcoal lighter material is intended to be used in fixed amounts

independent of the amount of charcoal used, such as certain paraffin cubes,

or 

ii) the charcoal lighter material is already incorporated into the charcoal, such

as certain “bag light,” “instant light” or “match light” products.

3. For a charcoal lighter material which meets the criteria specified in subsection

(h)(2)(C)2.i, the usage instructions provided to the Executive Officer shall

accurately reflect the quantity of charcoal lighter material used in the SCAQMD

Rule 1174 Testing Protocol for that product.

4. Any physical property data, formulation data, or other information required by
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 37

the Executive Officer for use in determining when a product modification has

occurred and for use in determining compliance with the conditions specified on

the Executive Order issued pursuant to section (h)(2).

(D) Within 30 days of receipt of an application, the Executive Officer shall advise the

applicant in writing either that it is complete or that specified additional information

is required to make it complete. Within 30 days of receipt of additional information,

the Executive Officer shall advise the applicant in writing either that the application is

complete, or that specified additional information or testing is still required before it

can be deemed complete.

(E) If the Executive Officer finds that an application meets the requirements of this

subsection (h)(2), then he or she shall issue an Executive Order certifying the

charcoal lighter material formulation and specifying such conditions as are necessary

to insure that the requirements of this subsection (h) are met. The Executive Officer

shall act on a complete application within 90 days after the application is deemed

complete.

(3) Notice of Modifications

For any charcoal lighter material for which certification has been granted pursuant to

subsection (h)(2), the applicant for certification shall notify the Executive Officer in

writing within 30 days of: (i) any change in the usage directions, or (ii) any change in

product formulation, test results, or any other information submitted pursuant to

subsection (h)(2) which may result in VOC emissions greater than 0.020 pound of VOC

per start.

(4) Revocation of Certification

If the Executive Officer determines that any certified charcoal lighter material formulation

results in VOC emissions from the ignition of charcoal which are greater than 0.020

pound of VOC per start, as determined by the SCAQMD Rule 1174 Testing Protocol and

the statistical analysis procedures contained therein, the Executive Officer shall revoke or

modify the certification as is necessary to assure that the charcoal lighter material will

result in VOC emissions of less than or equal to 0.020 pound of VOC per start. The

Executive Officer shall not revoke or modify the prior certification without first affording

the applicant for the certification an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the

procedures specified in Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 1,

Subchapter 1, Article 4 (commencing with section 60040), to determine if the certification

should be modified or revoked.

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection 94509(h), charcoal lighter material

products manufactured prior to January 1, 1993, may be sold, supplied, or offered for sale

until July 1, 1994, in all areas of California except the South Coast Air Quality

Management District. Charcoal lighter material products subject to SCAQMD Rule 1174

and sold, supplied, or offered for sale in the South Coast Air Quality Management District
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 38

shall meet the requirements of section 94509(h) upon the effective date of this subsection,

regardless of the date on which the products were manufactured.

(i) Requirements for aerosol adhesives. As specified in Health and Safety Code section

41712(h)(2), the 75 percent VOC standard for aerosol adhesives applies to all uses of aerosol

adhesives, including consumer, industrial, and commercial uses. Except as otherwise

provided in sections 94510, 94511, and 94514, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, use

or manufacture for sale in California any aerosol adhesive which, at the time of sale, use, or

manufacture, contains VOCs in excess of 75 percent by weight.

(j) Requirements for Floor Wax Strippers. After an effective date of January 1, 2002, no

person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for use in California any floor wax

stripper unless the following requirements are met:

(1) The label of each non-aerosol floor wax stripper must specify a dilution ratio for light or

medium build-up of polish that results in an as-used VOC concentration of 3 percent by

weight or less.

(2) If a non-aerosol floor wax stripper is also intended to be used for removal of heavy buildup of polish, the label of that floor wax stripper must specify a dilution ratio for heavy

build-up of polish that results in an as-used VOC concentration of 12 percent by weight

or less.

(3) The terms “light build-up”, “medium build-up”or “heavy build-up” are not specifically

required, as long as comparable terminology is used.

(k) Effective dates of the VOC limits for “Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners”

and “Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives.” The definitions for the product

categories of “Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners” and “Construction, Panel,

and Floor Covering Adhesives” were modified as part of the “Mid-term Measures II”

rulemaking action that was considered by the Board in October 1999. As a result of these

modifications, certain types of consumer products were included in these definitions that had

not previously been included. For those consumer products that were included in these

definitions for the first time as a result of the “Mid-term Measures II” rulemaking action, the

VOC limits (in section 94509(a)) applicable to these newly included products shall not

become legally effective until December 31, 2002.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 39

94510. Exemptions

(a) This article shall not apply to any consumer product manufactured in California for shipment

and use outside of California.

(b) The provisions of this article shall not apply to a manufacturer or distributor who sells,

supplies, or offers for sale in California a consumer product that does not comply with the

VOC standards specified in Section 94509, as long as the manufacturer or distributor can

demonstrate both that the consumer product is intended for shipment and use outside of

California, and that the manufacturer or distributor has taken reasonable prudent precautions

to assure that the consumer product is not distributed to California. This subsection (b) does

not apply to consumer products that are sold, supplied, or offered for sale by any person to

retail outlets in California.

(c) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to fragrances up to a combined

level of 2 percent by weight contained in any consumer product.

(d) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to any LVP-VOC.

(e) The requirements of Section 94512(b) shall not apply to consumer products registered under

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. Section

136/136y).

(f) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to air fresheners that are

comprised entirely of fragrance, less compounds not defined as VOCs under Section 94508 or

exempted under Section 94510(d). 

(g) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to air fresheners and insecticides

containing at least 98% paradichlorobenzene. 

(h) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to:

(1) existing personal fragrance products or personal fragrance products in development on or

before April 1, 1992, provided that both (i) the registration data specified in section

94513 is submitted for every such product by the date specified in section 94513(a), or

prior to July 1, 1993, whichever date occurs later, and (ii) such product is sold in

California prior to January 1, 1994. For the purposes of this subsection, a product “in

development” means:

(A) a product which a fragrance materials manufacturer is designing at the request of a

personal fragrance product manufacturer, or 

(B) a product which is the subject of a written marketing profile or other documentation

authorizing the creation and marketing of the product.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 40

(2) Personal fragrance products in development may be registered to qualify for this

exemption under hypothetical trade names or pseudonyms, provided that the actual trade

name is supplied to the Executive Officer within 30 days of marketing such products, or

January 1, 1994, whichever occurs first.

(i) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to adhesives sold in containers

of 1 fluid ounce or less. 

(j) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to any VOC which is a

fragrance in a personal fragrance product. 

(k) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to bait station insecticides. For

the purpose of this section, bait station insecticides are containers enclosing an insecticidal

bait that is not more than 0.5 ounce by weight, where the bait is designed to be ingested by

insects and is composed of solid material feeding stimulants with less than 5 percent (%)

active ingredients.

(l) The 1/1/99 VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) for personal fragrance products shall not

apply to such products which have been sold in California prior to 1/1/99.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code.

94511. Innovative Products

(a) The Executive Officer shall exempt a consumer product from the VOC limits specified in

Section 94509(a) if a manufacturer demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that, due

to some characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery systems or other factors,

the use of the product will result in less VOC emissions as compared to: 

(1) the VOC emissions from a representative consumer product which complies with the

VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a), or 

(2) the calculated VOC emissions from a noncomplying representative product, if the product

had been reformulated to comply with the VOC limits specified in section 94509(a). 

VOC emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:

ER = ENC x VOCSTD ÷ VOCNC

where:

E = The VOC emissions from the noncomplying representative product, R

had it been reformulated.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 41

E = The VOC emissions from the noncomplying representative product in its NC

current formulation.

VOC = the VOC limit specified in 94509(a). STD

VOC = the VOC content of the noncomplying product in its current formulation. NC

If a manufacturer demonstrates that this equation yields inaccurate results due to some

characteristic of the product formulation or other factors, an alternative method which

accurately calculates emissions may be used upon approval of the Executive Officer.

(b) For the purposes of this section, “representative consumer product” means a consumer

product which meets all of the following criteria: 

(1) the representative product shall be subject to the same VOC limit in Section 94509(a) as

the innovative product.

(2) the representative product shall be of the same product form as the innovative product,

unless the innovative product uses a new form which does not exist in the product

category at the time the application is made.

(3) the representative product shall have at least similar efficacy as other consumer products

in the same product category based on tests generally accepted for that product category

by the consumer products industry.

(c) A manufacturer shall apply in writing to the Executive Officer for any exemption claimed

under subsection (a). The application shall include the supporting documentation that

demonstrates the emissions from the innovative product, including the actual physical test

methods used to generate the data and, if necessary, the consumer testing undertaken to

document product usage. In addition, the applicant must provide any information necessary

to enable the Executive Officer to establish enforceable conditions for granting the exemption

including the VOC content for the innovative product and test methods for determining the

VOC content. All information submitted by a manufacturer pursuant to this section shall be

handled in accordance with the procedures specified in Title 17, California Code of

Regulations, Sections 91000-91022.

(d) Within 30 days of receipt of the exemption application the Executive Officer shall determine

whether an application is complete as provided in section 60030(a), Title 17, California Code

of Regulations.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 42

(e) Within 90 days after an application has been deemed complete, the Executive Officer shall

determine whether, under what conditions, and to what extent, an exemption from the

requirements of Section 94509(a) will be permitted. The applicant and the Executive Officer

may mutually agree to a longer time period for reaching a decision, and additional supporting

documentation may be submitted by the applicant before a decision has been reached. The

Executive Officer shall notify the applicant of the decision in writing and specify such terms

and conditions that are necessary to insure that emissions from the product will meet the

emissions reductions specified in subsection (a), and that such emissions reductions can be

enforced.

(f) In granting an exemption for a product the Executive Officer shall establish conditions that

are enforceable. These conditions shall include the VOC content of the innovative product,

dispensing rates, application rates and any other parameters determined by the Executive

Officer to be necessary. The Executive Officer shall also specify the test methods for

determining conformance to the conditions established. The test methods shall include

criteria for reproducibility, accuracy, sampling and laboratory procedures.

(g) For any product for which an exemption has been granted pursuant to this section, the

manufacturer shall notify the Executive Officer in writing within 30 days of any change in the

product formulation or recommended product usage directions, and shall also notify the

Executive Officer within 30 days if the manufacturer learns of any information which would 

alter the emissions estimates submitted to the Executive Officer in support of the exemption

application.

(h) If the VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) are lowered for a product category through

any subsequent rulemaking, all innovative product exemptions granted for products in the

product category, except as provided in this subsection (h), shall have no force and effect as

of the effective date of the modified VOC standard. This subsection (h) shall not apply to

those innovative products which have VOC emissions less than the applicable lowered VOC 

limit and for which a written notification of the product's emissions status versus the lowered

VOC limit has been submitted to and approved by the Executive Officer at least 60 days

before the effective date of such limits.

(i) If the Executive Officer believes that a consumer product for which an exemption has been

granted no longer meets the criteria for an innovative product specified in subsection (a), the

Executive Officer may modify or revoke the exemption as necessary to assure that the

product will meet these criteria. The Executive Officer shall not modify or revoke an

exemption without first affording the applicant an opportunity for a public hearing held in

accordance with the procedures specified in Title 17, California Code of Regulations,

Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4 (commencing with Section 60040), to

determine if the exemption should be modified or revoked.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 43

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code.

94512. Administrative Requirements

(a) Most Restrictive Limit. Notwithstanding the definition of “product category” in 

Section 94508, if anywhere on the principal display panel of any consumer product, any

representation is made that the product may be used as, or is suitable for use as a consumer

product for which a lower VOC limit is specified in Section 94509(a), then the lowest VOC

limit shall apply. This requirement does not apply to general purpose cleaners.

(b) Code-Dating. Each manufacturer of a consumer product subject to Section 94509 shall

clearly display on each consumer product container or package, the day, month, and year on

which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating such date. This date or code shall

be displayed on each consumer product container or package no later than twelve months

prior to the effective date of the applicable standard specified in Section 94509. No person

shall erase, alter, deface or otherwise remove or make illegible any date or code-date from

any regulated product container without the express authorization of the manufacturer.

The requirements of this provision shall not apply to:

(1) personal fragrance products of 2 milliliters or less, which are offered to consumers free of

charge for the purpose of sampling the product; or

(2) products containing no VOCs (as defined in section 94508), or containing VOCs at

0.10% by weight or less.

(c) If a manufacturer uses a code indicating the date of manufacture, for any consumer product

subject to section 94509 an explanation of the code must be filed with the Executive Officer

of the ARB no later than twelve months prior to the effective date of the applicable standard

specified in section 94509.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code.

94513. Reporting Requirements

(a) Upon 90 days written notice, the Executive Officer may require any responsible party to

report information for any consumer product or products the Executive Officer may specify

including, but not limited to, all or part of the following information:

(1) the name of the responsible party and the party's address, telephone number, and
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 44

designated contact person;

(2) any claim of confidentiality made pursuant to Title 17, California Code of Regulations,

Section 91011; 

(3) the product brand name for each consumer product subject to registration and upon

request by the Executive Officer, the product label; 

(4) the product category to which the consumer product belongs;

(5) the applicable product form(s) listed separately;

(6) an identification of each product brand name and form as a “Household Product”, 

“I&I Product”, or both; 

(7) separate California sales in pounds per year, to the nearest pound, and the method used to

calculate California sales for each product form;

(8) for registrations submitted by two companies, an identification of the company which is

submitting relevant data separate from that submitted by the responsible party. All

registration information from both companies shall be submitted by the date specified in

Section 94513(a); 

(9) for each product brand name and form, the net percent by weight of the total product, less

container and packaging, comprised of the following, rounded to the nearest one-tenth of

a percent (0.1%): 

(A) Total Table B Compounds

(B) Total LVP-VOCs that are not fragrances

(C) Total All Other Carbon-Containing Compounds that are not fragrances

(D) Total All Non-Carbon-Containing Compounds

(E) Total Fragrance

(F) For products containing greater than two percent by weight fragrance, but excluding

“personal fragrance products”:

(i) the percent of fragrance that are LVP-VOCs, and 

(ii) the percent of fragrance that are all other carbon-containing compounds

(G) For “personal fragrance products”, the density of the fragrance

(H) Total Paradichlorobenzene

(10) for each product brand name and form, the identity, including the specific chemical

name and associated Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) number, of the following: 

(A) Each Table B Compound

(B) Each LVP-VOC that is not a fragrance
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 45

(11) if applicable, the weight percent comprised of propellent for each product;

(12) if applicable, an identification of the type of propellent (Type A, Type B, Type C, or

a blend of the different types);

(b) In addition to the requirements of section 94513(a)(10), the responsible party shall report or

shall arrange to have reported to the Executive Officer the net percent by weight of each 

ozone-depleting compound which is (1) listed in section 94509(e) and (2) contained in a

product subject to registration under section 94513(a) in any amount greater than 0.1 percent

by weight.

(c) All information submitted by responsible parties pursuant to Section 94513 shall be handled

in accordance with the procedures specified in Title 17, California Code of Regulations,

Sections 91000-91022. 

(d) Special Reporting Requirements for Aerosol Adhesives

On or before March 31, 1999, all responsible parties for aerosol adhesives shall report to the

Executive Officer the following information for products sold or offered for sale in California: 

(1) data regarding product sales and composition for the year 1998, including the information

listed in Section 94513(a), and any other information that the Executive Officer may

specify; and

(2) a written update of the research and development efforts undertaken to achieve the

January 1, 2002, VOC limit. The written update must include detailed information about

the raw materials (solvents, propellants, resins, and polymers) and hardware (valves,

actuators, cans) used in product reformulation, the testing protocols used, the results of

the testing, and the cost of reformulation efforts.

(e) Special Reporting Requirements for Perchloroethylene-Containing Consumer Products that

are subject to the Phase I or Phase II VOC Standards

(1) The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all responsible parties for

perchloroethylene-containing consumer products that are subject to the Phase I or Phase

II VOC Standards Specified in Section 94509(a), and are sold or offered for sale in

California on or after January 1, 1996.

(e) Special Reporting Requirements for Consumer Products that Contain Perchloroethylene or

Methylene Chloride Perchloroethylene-Containing Consumer Products that are subject to the

Phase I or Phase II VOC Standards
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 46

(1) The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all responsible parties for consumer

products that are subject to section 94509(a) and contain perchloroethylene or methylene

chloride. For the purposes of this subsection, a product “contains perchloroethylene or

methylene chloride” if the product contains 1.0 percent or more by weight (exclusive of

the container or packaging) of either perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. 

perchloroethylene-containing consumer products that are subject to the Phase I or Phase

II VOC Standards Specified in Section 94509(a), and are sold or offered for sale in

California on or after January 1, 1996. For the purposes of this subsection,

“perchloroethylene-containing consumer product” means any consumer product that is

required to comply with any Phase I or Phase II VOC standard specified in section

94509(a) and contains 1.0 percent or more by weight (exclusive of the container or

packaging) of perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene).

(2) Reporting Requirements to Establish Baseline For each consumer product that contains

perchloroethylene or methylene chloride, the responsible party shall report the following

information for products sold in California during each calendar year, beginning with the

year 2000, and ending with the year 2010. Within 60 days after the effective date of this

subsection (e), all responsible parties for perchloroethylene-containing consumer products

shall report to the Executive Officer the following information for each product:

(A) the product brand name and a copy of the product label with legible usage

instructions;

(B) the product category to which the consumer product belongs;

(C) the applicable product form(s) (listed separately);

(D) for each product form listed in (C), the total amount of the consumer product sold in

California between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1996, to the nearest pound

(exclusive of the container or packaging), and the method used for calculating the

California sales;

(E) the weight percent, to the nearest 0.10 percent, of perchloroethylene in the consumer

product;

(3) Reporting Requirements for New Perchloroethylene-Containing Products Sold in

California On or After January 1, 1997. Within 60 days after the effective date of this

subsection (e), all responsible parties for perchloroethylene-containing consumer products

shall report to the Executive Officer the following information for each product:

(A) the product brand name and a copy of the product label with legible usage

instructions;
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 47

(B) the product category to which the consumer product belongs;

(C) the applicable product form(s) (listed separately);

(D) for each product form listed in (C), the total sales amount of the consumer product

sold in California during the calendar year between January 1, 1996 and December

31, 1996, to the nearest pound (exclusive of the container or packaging), and the

method used for calculating the California sales;

(E) the weight percent, to the nearest 0.10 percent, of perchloroethylene and methylene

chloride in the consumer product;

(3) The information specified in subsection 94513(e)(2) shall be reported for each calendar

year by March 1 of the following year. The first report shall be due on March 1, 2001, for

calendar year 2000. A new report is due on March 1 of each year thereafter, until March

1, 2011, when the last report is due. Reporting Requirements for New PerchloroethyleneContaining Products Sold in California On or After January 1, 1997. Responsible parties

for new perchloroethylene-containing consumer products sold or offered for sale in

California in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, or 2001 shall provide the information specified in

subsections (e)(2)(A) through (e)(2)(E) by March 1st of the year immediately after the

year in which the product is first sold or offered for sale in California. For products

introduced after January 1, 2002, responsible parties are not required to submit this

information unless specifically requested to do so by the Executive Officer.

(4) Annual Reporting Requirements. On or before March 1, 1998, March 1, 1999, 

March 1, 2000, March 1, 2001, and March 1, 2002, all responsible parties subject to the

requirements of this subsection shall provide to the Executive Officer an update which

reports, for the previous calendar year, any changes in the annual California sales,

perchloroethylene content, or any other information provided pursuant to subsections

(e)(2)(A) through (e)(2)(E). After March 1, 2005, responsible parties are not required to

submit this information unless specifically requested to do so by the Executive Officer.

(4)(5) Upon request, the Executive Officer shall make the perchloroethylene information

submitted pursuant to this subsection available to publicly owned treatment works in

California, in accordance with the procedures for handling of confidential information

specified in Title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 91000-91022.

(A) On or before July 1, 2002, the Executive Officer shall evaluate the information, along

with data on influent and effluent levels of perchloroethylene as reported by publiclyowned treatment works personnel and any other relevant information, to determine if

it is likely that publicly-owned treatment works are experiencing increased levels of

perchloroethylene, relative to 1996 levels, that can be attributed to consumer

products which contain perchloroethylene.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 48

(B) If the Executive Officer determines that it is likely that increased perchloroethylene

levels at the publicly-owned treatment works are caused by increased levels of

perchloroethylene in consumer products subject to this regulation, then the Executive

Officer shall, in conjunction with the publicly-owned treatment works and other

appropriate parties, implement measures which are feasible, appropriate, and

necessary for reducing perchloroethylene levels at the publicly-owned treatment

works.

(f) Special Reporting Requirements for Hairsprays

This subsection (f) applies to each responsible party for any hairspray product that has greater

than a 55 percent VOC content, if the responsible party intends to sell, supply, offer for sale,

or manufacture the product for sale in California after January 1, 1998. Each such

responsible party shall submit to the Executive Officer the following information:

(1) On or before January 1, 1998, a compliance plan shall be submitted that details the

responsible party’s schedule for achieving compliance with the June 1, 1999 55 percent

VOC standard for hairsprays.

(2) Program updates for each compliance plan shall be submitted by the following dates: April

1, 1998, July 1, 1998, October 1, 1998, January 1, 1999, March 1, 1999 and

May 1, 1999; except that the obligation to submit updates shall cease when the

responsible party achieves compliance with the 55 percent VOC standard.

(3) Each compliance plan and update shall include the projected sequence and dates of all key

events pertaining to the development of 55 percent VOC hairspray formulas including, at

a minimum, the following information: information on the types of formulations to be

tested; formulation data; prototype testing; toxicity, corrosion, and stability tests;

packaging and valve testing; safety and efficacy testing; consumer market testing and

consumer acceptance testing; schedule for plant modifications and large scale production;

the expected date of production of hairsprays that meet the June 1, 1999 standard; and a

back-up plan that describes the manufacturer’s intended actions should the chosen

compliance method or technology not succeed.

(g) Special Reporting Requirements for Consumer Products that Contain Methylene Chloride or

Perchloroethylene, and are Subject to the Phase III VOC Standards

(1) The requirements of this subsection apply to all responsible parties for consumer products

that: (A) are subject to the Phase III VOC standards specified in section 94509, and 

(B) are sold or offered for sale in California after the effective date of this subsection (g),

and (C) contain methylene chloride or perchloroethylene. For the purposes of this

subsection, a product “contains methylene chloride or perchloroethylene” if the product

contains 1.0 percent or more by weight (exclusive of the container or packaging) of either
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 49

methylene chloride or perchloroethylene.

(2) For each consumer product meeting all of the criteria specified in subsection (g)(1), the

responsible party shall report the following information to the Executive Officer:

(A) the product brand name and a copy of the product label with legible usage

instructions;

(B) the product category to which the consumer product belongs;

(C) the applicable product form(s) (listed separately);

(D) for each product form listed in (C), the total amount of the consumer product sold in

California in the previous calendar year, to the nearest pound (exclusive of the

container or packaging), and the method used for calculating the California sales;

(E) the weight percent, to the nearest 0.10 percent, of methylene chloride and

perchloroethylene in the consumer product;

(3) The information specified in subsection (g)(2) shall be reported on or before the 

following dates:

(A) For those Phase III product categories with initial effective dates of January 1, 2001,

the first report is due on or before March 1, 2000, and shall cover products sold or

offered for sale in California during the previous calendar year. Subsequent reports

covering the previous calendar year are due on or before each March 1 thereafter

until March 1, 2006, when the last report is due.

(B) For those Phase III product categories with initial effective dates of January 1, 2002,

the first report is due on or before March 1, 2001, and shall cover products sold or

offered for sale in California during the previous calendar year. Subsequent reports

covering the previous calendar year are due on or before each March 1 thereafter

until March 1, 2006, when the last report is due.

(C) For those Phase III product categories with initial effective dates of January 1, 2003,

the first report is due on or before March 1, 2002, and shall cover products sold or

offered for sale in California during the previous calendar year. Subsequent reports

covering the previous calendar year are due on or before each March 1 thereafter

until March 1, 2006, when the last report is due.

(D) For those Phase III product categories with initial effective dates of January 1, 2005,

the first report is due on or before March 1, 2004, and shall cover products sold or

offered for sale in California during the previous calendar year. Subsequent reports 
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 50

covering the previous calendar year are due on or before each March 1 thereafter

until March 1, 2006, when the last report is due.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 41511, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, 41511, and 41712, Health and Safety Code.

[Note: no modifications are proposed to sections 94514 - 94517.]
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 51

APPENDIX B:

MID-TERM MEASURES II MEETING NOTICES

(SUBGROUPS AND WORKSHOPS).
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 52

APPENDIX C:

1997 CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS SURVEY.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 53

APPENDIX D:

SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED AND DATES

OF REGULATORY AMENDMENTS.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 54

APPENDIX E:

SUMMARY OF COST CALCULATIONS.
Mid-term Measures II Proposed Regulation 55

APPENDIX F:

LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.