BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AUDITORIUM 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2006 8:30 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Robert Sawyer, Chairperson Ms. Sandra Berg Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Mr. Henry Gong Ms. Lydia Kennard Mr. Ronald O. Loveridge Ms. Barbara Patrick Mrs. Barbara Riordan Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Quetin, Ombudsman Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Mr. Robert Barham, Assistant Chief, Stationary Source Division Ms. Janette Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch, SSD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Mr. Robert Fletcher, Chief, Stationary Source Division Mr. Bob Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel Ms. Trish Johnson, Staff, Measures Development Section, SSD Mr. David Mallory, Manager, Measures Development Section, SSD Ms. Carla Takemoto, Manager, Technical Evaluation Section, SSD ALSO PRESENT Mr. Larry Beaver, Radiator Specialty Co. Mr. David Bower, Johnson Diversey Mr. Chip Brewer, S.C. Johnson Ms. Elaine Chang, SCAQMD Mr. John Elhert, Berryman Products Mr. Ron Fausnight, Shell Global Solution Mr. Douglas Fratz, CSPA Mr. Andrew Hackman, The Automotive Specialty Products Alliance Mr. Gregory Johnson, Diversfield Brands Mr. Mark Kubiak, Claire Manufacturing Company, Sprayway, Inc. Ms. Lee Lockie, SCAQMD Mr. Sean McNear, Consumer Products Group Mr. Eileen Moyer, Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Laurie Nelson, Johnson Diversey Mr. Edward Piszynski, Bridgeview Aerosol, LLC Mr. Norman Plotkin, AAIA/CANA Ms. Catherine Porter, Worksafe Ms. Julia Quint, Citizen Mr. Doug Raymond, NAA, Radiator, WD40, Claire, NAA, Stoners, Meguiars Mr. Adam Selisker, CRC Industries, Inc. Ms. Virgina St. Jean, San Francisco Department of Public Health Ms. Patrice Sutton, Citizen Mr. Jason Williamson, Valvolino Ms. Katy Wolt, IRTA Mr. Joseph Yost, CSPA Mr. Harry Zechman, Stoner, Inc. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Item 6-10-8 Chairperson Sawyer 2 Executive Officer Witherspoon 3 Staff Presentation 4 Ombudsman Quetin 18 Q&A 20 Mr. Raymond 29 Ms. Chang 31 Ms. Lockie 37 Ms. Wolt 46 Ms. Quint 49 Ms. St. Jean 50 Mr. Raymond 53 Mr. Zechman 55 . Mr. Kubiak 62 Mr. Yost 63 Ms. Moyer 67 Ms. Nelson 70 Mr. Johnson 76 Mr. Hackman 78 Mr. Piszyinski 82 Mr. Selisker 86 Mr. Elhert 89 Mr. Fausnight 95 Mr. Beaver 97 Mr. McNear 99 Mr. Williamson 104 Mr. Plotkin 106 Mr. Fratz 107 Ms. Porter 111 Mr. Brewer 113 Ms. Sutton 116 Ex Parte 119 Q&A 120 Motion 134 Vote 135 Adjournment 136 Reporter's Certificate 137 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The October 17th, 2006, 3 public meeting of the Air Resources Board will now come to 4 order. 5 Please rise and join me in the Pledge of 6 Allegiance? 7 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 8 recited in unison.) 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 10 Will the Clerk of the Board please read the role? 11 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Here. 13 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 15 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 16 Dr. Gong? 17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Here. 18 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 19 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here. 20 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge? 21 Supervisor Patrick? 22 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Here. 23 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mrs. Riordan? 24 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 25 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 Dr. Sawyer? 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Here. 3 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mr. Chairman, we have a 4 quorum. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 6 I have a few opening remarks to make before we 7 get started. To witnesses signing up to speak today, 8 please be aware that the Board will impose a three-minute 9 time limit so everyone gets a chance to speak. I suggest 10 that each speaker put his or her testimony into his or her 11 own words. It is easier for the Board to follow if you go 12 straight to your main points. Also, please do not read 13 your written testimony, since it will be entered into the 14 record in its entirety. 15 If anyone in the public wishes to testify on 16 today's agenda items, please sign up with the Clerk of the 17 Board. Also, if you have a written statement, please 18 provide 30 copies when you sign up. I want to warn you 19 today that the noisy beeper is back on on our timing 20 system, so I hope it doesn't startle you. What will 21 happen in imposing our three-minute limit is that after 22 two minutes, an orange light comes on. After three 23 minutes, you get a beep and the red light. 24 Agenda Item 6-10-8. This morning, we will 25 consider proposed amendments to the California consumer PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 products regulations to satisfy commitments this Board 2 made in the State Implementation Plan for ozone and to 3 comply with the Air Resources Board's statutory mandate to 4 achieve the maximum feasible reductions in volatile 5 organic compounds from consumers products. 6 Ms. Witherspoon, please introduce this item. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Good morning, Dr. 8 Sawyer and members of the Board. 9 The regulations staff is proposing today effects 10 21 consumer product categories including automotive care 11 products, cleaners, degreasers, disinfectants, adhesives, 12 fabric care products, personal care products, and waxes 13 and polishes. We are proposing emission limits for 15 of 14 these categories and additional requirements for the 15 remaining six. 16 Staff is also proposing to prohibit the use of 17 certain toxic air contaminants in consumer products and 18 making minor amendments to clarify the applicability of 19 the aerosol coatings regulation. Ms. Trish Johnson of our 20 Stationary Source Division will present staff's proposal. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We'll wait a few minutes 22 until we've get the projection system operating. 23 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 24 presented as follows.) 25 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon, Dr. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 Sawyer, and members of the Board. 2 As Ms. Witherspoon mentioned, today we are 3 proposing for your consideration amendments to the 4 California consumer products regulation and the aerosol 5 coatings regulation. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. JOHNSON: This slide contains the outline for 8 the following presentation. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. JOHNSON: First, a background on consumer 11 products. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. JOHNSON: Consumer products are defined in 14 State law as chemically formulated products used by 15 household and institutional consumers and include 16 personal, automotive, and household care products. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. JOHNSON: State law requires the ARB to 19 achieve the maximum feasible reductions in volatile 20 organic compounds, or VOCs, from consumer products. The 21 regulations must be technologically and commercially 22 feasible and preserve product forms. Aerosols, pump 23 sprays, solids, and liquids are some examples of product 24 forms. 25 We are also required to consult with public PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 health experts and consider any recommendations they 2 provide regarding the regulation of health benefit 3 products. The statute requires the efficacy of the 4 products that effect public health be maintained. 5 --o0o-- 6 MS. JOHNSON: We have been developing VOC 7 regulations for consumer products since 1989. VOC limits 8 for 112 categories of consumer products have been 9 established. These VOC limits apply to antiperspirants 10 and deodorants, aerosol coatings, and other categories 11 such as automotive, household, and personal care products. 12 Since 1990, these limits have achieved a VOC 13 emissions reduction of more than 170 tons per day, or a 14 50 percent reduction from regulated categories. The Board 15 has also previously prohibited the use of toxic air 16 contaminants such as methylene chloride, 17 perchloroethylene, paradichlorobenzene, and 18 trichloroethylene in several consumer products categories. 19 --o0o-- 20 MS. JOHNSON: This slide shows the statewide VOC 21 emissions by major source category. As shown, despite 22 reducing emissions from regulated categories by 23 50 percent, the emissions from consumer products are 24 predicted to grow. This contribution is due to population 25 growth as well as controls, reducing the emissions from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 other sources, particularly motor vehicles. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. JOHNSON: Currently, the consumer products is 4 the second largest emission source in the South Coast air 5 basin and sixth largest in the San Joaquin Valley air 6 basin. 7 By 2023, consumer products will be the largest 8 VOC emission source in the South Coast air basin and the 9 third largest in the San Joaquin Valley. 10 While other VOC emissions sources are decreasing, 11 without further regulation, consumer product emissions 12 would continue to increase with population growth. 13 --o0o-- 14 MS. JOHNSON: I will now present staff's proposed 15 amendments. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. JOHNSON: First, I would like to describe the 18 process we used to develop this proposal. In 2004, we 19 distributed a survey that requested information on 250 20 different categories of consumer products. We received 21 information on more than 26,000 products. We analyzed 22 survey forms, entered data into a database, and 23 communicated with company contacts to make certain that 24 the information was correct. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 MS. JOHNSON: Using survey data, staff analyzed 2 the VOC emissions for each category, examined the VOC 3 percent distribution of products, studied product labels, 4 identified key ingredients used, and conducted patent, 5 literature, and technology reviews. As a result, we 6 identified 50 categories for possible control from the 250 7 surveyed categories. These 50 categories have significant 8 VOC emissions and a VOC distribution that show potential 9 for regulation. This will be described more on the next 10 slide. 11 We first presented the 50 categories at a public 12 meeting in March of this year. After March, we continued 13 to research and refine categories and held regular public 14 meetings. To allow more time to evaluate technical 15 issues, some of the original categories were deferred 16 until next year. Of the 50 categories originally 17 identified, 15 are being proposed for regulation today. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. JOHNSON: When proposing a VOC limit, staff 20 uses many important pieces of data, several of which are 21 presented on this slide. The VOC distribution as shown in 22 the diagram is one example of critical information. In 23 this example diagram, there is potential for regulation as 24 products exist at both a high and low percentage VOC. 25 Once a limit is proposed that reflects the cleanest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 technology, staff considers the percentage of the market 2 and number of products that would meet the proposed limit. 3 Additionally, we may propose a limit that can be achieved 4 through transfer of existing formulation technologies. An 5 example of this specific application is discussed in 6 detail on the next slide. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. JOHNSON: In January 2002, ARB sponsored 9 research to investigate the transfer of water-based 10 technology used in parts washers to aerosol form for 11 automotive products. The Institute for Research and 12 Technical Assistance, or IRTA, was awarded the contract. 13 Four categories of products as shown on this 14 slide were investigated by IRTA. The study found that low 15 VOC and low toxicity cleaners/degreasers similar to those 16 used in parts washers could be transferred to the aerosol 17 form. Products that performed favorably were either water 18 based or exempt organic solvent based. 19 The study concluded that aerosol automotive 20 products could be reformulated with no more than ten 21 percent VOC. The final report for this research was 22 approved by ARB's Research Screening Committee. While the 23 overall results of the study were favorable, it was also 24 discovered that formulating into an aerosol form presented 25 challenges that would require further development and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 refinement. 2 Staff acknowledges that a majority of products 3 are currently at about 45 percent VOC, and reformulating 4 to 10 percent VOC may be difficult for some manufacturers. 5 As you will hear later in this presentation, we are 6 proposing that extra time beyond 2008 be allowed for 7 manufacturers to achieve 10 percent VOC for these product 8 categories. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. JOHNSON: This slide provides an overview of 11 the proposed amendments which will be discussed in greater 12 detail on the following five slides. 13 The proposed amendments include new VOC limits 14 for 15 categories, three of which are new categories that 15 have not been regulated before. We are also proposing to 16 clarify definitions and overlapping requirements in the 17 consumer products regulation and the aerosol coatings 18 regulation. 19 Additionally, we are proposing to prohibit the 20 use of three toxic air contaminants: methylene chloride, 21 perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in four product 22 categories. 23 Also, to address technical reformulation 24 difficulties, we propose to adjust the VOC limit for nail 25 polish removers and to exempt certain electronic cleaners PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 from assumed to be effective VOC limit. Several other 2 minor changes are being proposed will clarify, simplify, 3 and better organize the regulations. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. JOHNSON: This slide, along with the three 6 following slides, list the 15 categories included in 7 staff's original proposal. Each slide provides the 8 product category, sub-category, proposed VOC limit, and 9 corresponding effective date. 10 --o0o-- 11 MS. JOHNSON: It should be noted that the 12 disinfectant in sanitizer categories include health 13 benefit products. Staff consulted with representatives 14 from the California Department of Health Services and 15 other public health organizations to ensure that our 16 proposal would not effect the efficacy of these products. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. JOHNSON: We will monitor industry's progress 19 in complying with the VOC limits prior to the effective 20 dates. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. JOHNSON: We are also proposing to prohibit 23 the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and 24 trichloroethylene from the four product categories listed 25 here. While these compounds are not currently used, our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 objective is to prevent their use where the possibility 2 exhibits. We propose that the prohibition be effective on 3 December 31st, 2008. This proposal is consistent with the 4 Board's prior actions for automotive products and aerosol 5 adhesives. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. JOHNSON: I'll move on now to a discussion of 8 the overall impacts of our proposal. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. JOHNSON: There will be significant 11 environmental benefits from this proposal. Overall, the 12 proposed amendments will achieve 11.7 tons per day VOC 13 reductions statewide, five tons per day in the south coast 14 air basin, and 1.2 tons per day in the San Joaquin Valley 15 air basin by December 31st, 2012. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. JOHNSON: Staff's proposal to eliminate the 18 use of chlorinated toxic air contaminants will prevent an 19 increase in emissions of these compounds in categories 20 where the possibility for use exists. We do not expect 21 any significant adverse environmental impacts as a result 22 of the proposal. 23 With specific exclusions to the disinfectant and 24 sanitizer categories, the proposal will not adversely 25 effect the efficacy of health benefit products. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. JOHNSON: The overall costs of the proposal 3 are shown here. These figures represent averages. There 4 exists some variability in each category. These costs 5 compare favorably with other consumer products regulations 6 adopted previously by the Board. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. JOHNSON: Now I'll discuss the comments that 9 have been brought to our attention as a result of staff's 10 proposal. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. JOHNSON: Numerous comments were received as 13 a result of our proposal. We would like to highlight the 14 comments that fall into the five main themes featured on 15 this slide. The largest number of comments involve VOC 16 limits proposed for the four automotive categories. Many 17 manufacturers have commented that the December 31st, 2008, 18 effective date for the 10 percent VOC limits proposed 19 cannot be met. Effected industries concern that they may 20 not be able to meet the significant technical challenge of 21 moving a whole line of automotive products from a VOC of 22 about 45 percent to 10 percent in the 2008 time frame. In 23 a moment, I'll discuss a modification to the proposal that 24 addresses this issue. 25 The next item listed is the definition changes to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 the rubber/vinyl protectants category. Staff is proposing 2 changes to address a drafting error in the original 3 definition. This drafting error made it unclear that 4 products used on rubber or vinyl were intended to be 5 regulated under this category. Certain manufacturers 6 believe their tire dressing products contain resins and 7 are therefore aerosol coatings and should be subject to 8 the aerosol coatings regulation. 9 Other manufacturers understood that these 10 products did indeed qualify as rubber and vinyl 11 protectants and reformulated their products to meet the 10 12 percent VOC limit effective January 1st, 2005. In 13 addition, we have received comments that our proposed 14 modifications inadvertently captured aerosol products used 15 on other substrates. Shortly, I will discuss a 16 modification to the original proposal for this category to 17 address this issue. 18 The third item is the VOC limits proposed for the 19 floor polish or wax sub-categories. One manufacturer 20 believes a three percent VOC content is necessary for a 21 nitch group of products known as burnish floor finishes. 22 These products are designed to be used with high speed 23 varnishing machines. Staff has not found technical 24 justification for this, because low and zero VOC products 25 compatible with high-speed burnishing machines exist. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 There's also a very high complying market share for the 2 proposed one percent VOC limits. 3 We have worked with this manufacturer to explore 4 alternatives they may qualify for under the compliance 5 options afforded in the regulation, including the 6 innovative product provision and the alternative control 7 plan. 8 The fourth item concerns the 75 percent VOC limit 9 for electronic cleaners effective December 31st, 2006. 10 Manufacturers have requested further exclusions to the 11 definition. Staff believes that there is justification to 12 this claim and is proposing an amendment to respond to 13 this concern. 14 The last item listed involves an exclusion to the 15 disinfectant and sanitizer categories for pre-moistened 16 wipes or towelette disinfectant or sanitizer products used 17 exclusively in medical settings. This comment was 18 received from a public health organization. 19 Additionally, manufacturers have expressed 20 concerns about products that may be subject to multiple 21 VOC limits, such as cleaners/disinfectant products. These 22 concerns will be addressed momentarily when I discuss 23 staff's proposed 15-day changes. 24 An additional comment was received recently 25 requesting more time for the multi-purpose solvent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 definition to become effective. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. JOHNSON: As a result of the comments we 4 received, we are proposing several modifications to the 5 original proposal. Since a release of the staff report, 6 we have continued to work with affected industry on the 7 automotive cleaning categories. We acknowledge that the 8 10 percent VOC limits are challenging and support that 9 more time is needed to reformulate product lines. 10 On the following slide, I will present staff's 11 proposed amendments to the VOC limits and effective dates 12 for these four specific categories. For the rubber/vinyl 13 protectant comments, we continue to work with industry. 14 Our objective is to correctly describe in the regulation 15 that products used on tires be included and other aerosol 16 products not be included in this category as was 17 originally intended when this category's VOC limit was 18 adopted in 1997. 19 Some manufacturers believe that because their 20 product contains a resin, they should be considered an 21 aerosol coating. Regardless of formulation, products 22 applied to tires to protect or provide a shine are 23 rubber/vinyl protectants as was described in the 1997 24 staff report. We intend to close the loophole that exists 25 in this category's definition and clarify that all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 products used on tires are subject to the consumer 2 products regulation and specifically the 10 percent VOC 3 limit for rubber/vinyl protectants. 4 I'll now address the issues raised by interested 5 parties regarding the disinfectant and sanitizer 6 definitions. We are proposing to slightly modify these 7 definitions, excluding pre-moistened wipes or towelettes 8 that are used in medical settings. Additionally, we 9 intend to work with manufacturers to clarify requirements 10 for products subject to multiple VOC limits, such as 11 cleaners/disinfectants products as mentioned previously. 12 To address concerns about the 75 percent VOC 13 limit, effective December 31st, 2006, for electronic 14 cleaners, we are proposing a one-year extension to allow 15 industry more time to investigate reformulation options in 16 the absence of anticipated VOC exemptions. 17 We also intend to continue to work with industry 18 to determine if exclusions from this category are 19 necessary. 20 The last modification not featured on this slide 21 is a change to the multi-purpose solvent category 22 definition. This modification clarifies that the 23 definition change in the staff report will become 24 effective January 1st, 2008, to allow manufacturers more 25 time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. JOHNSON: As described earlier, this slide 3 contains our proposed modifications to the VOC limits and 4 effective dates for the four automotive categories listed 5 here. We have worked diligently with effected industry 6 since the release of the staff report and acknowledged 7 that the 10 percent VOC limits are challenging. 8 We propose 20 percent interim VOC limits 9 effective December 31st, 2008, for brake cleaners, 10 carburetor or fuel injection intake cleaners, and aerosol 11 general purpose degreasers. Ten percent VOC limits for 12 each category would be effective December 31st, 2012. 13 A majority of the reductions will be achieved at 14 the 20 percent interim step. We are proposing to retain 15 the original 10 percent limit for engine degreasers, but 16 move the effective date to December 31st, 2010. Further, 17 we are proposing to commit to a technical review of 18 industry's progress in reformulating effected products to 19 meet the 10 percent VOC limits at least 18 months prior to 20 the 2012 effective date. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. JOHNSON: In summary, this proposal will 23 achieve an emissions reduction of at least 11.7 tons per 24 day by 2012. With the proposed 15-day changes, staff 25 anticipates additional reductions above 11.7 tons per day. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 The proposed amendments are technologically and 2 commercially feasible and will not eliminate product 3 forms. Additionally, staff has determined that the 4 amendments are cost effective. Finally, the proposal will 5 prevent exposure to toxic air contaminants. 6 --o0o-- 7 MS. JOHNSON: To conclude, we recommend that you 8 adopt the proposed amendments with the modifications 9 described today. We'd be happy to answer any questions 10 you may have. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much, 12 Ms. Johnson. 13 Madam Ombudsman, please describe the public 14 participation process that occurred while this item was 15 being developed and report any concerns or comments you 16 may have to the Board at this time. 17 OMBUDSMAN QUETIN: Thank you. Chairman Sawyer 18 and members of the Board, this regulation has been 19 developed with input from local air districts and 20 agencies, U.S. EPA, the consumer product manufacturers, 21 chemical producers, marketers, and trade associations. 22 Staff began the process to develop the 2006 23 amendments with a comprehensive survey previously 24 described by staff. 25 In 2004, a Subcommittee of the Consumer Products PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 Working Group was formed to serve as a forum for 2 communication. Participation in the work group was open 3 to the public. The first meeting was held on August 25th, 4 2004, and the second work group meeting held on September 5 30th, 2004. 6 In November, 2004, a new survey was mailed to the 7 companies and was also posted on the internet on the same 8 day. Additionally, a survey training session was held on 9 December 3rd, 2004, via webcast. 10 Four public meetings of the work group were 11 conducted from January 2006 through July of 2006. All 12 four meetings had teleconference capabilities. The first 13 public meeting was held in Sacramento on January 19th, 14 2006, with about 27 attendees and 79 participants on the 15 phone. The second meeting was held on March 27th in 16 Sacramento where approximately 25 stakeholders attended 17 with 64 participants on the phone. The third meeting was 18 held on June 1st in Sacramento with 36 stakeholders 19 attending and 85 people on the phone. The fourth was held 20 on July 26th in Sacramento with 43 participants and 92 21 people on the phone. 22 Staff also held one public meeting on September 23 14th, 2006, in Sacramento with approximately 22 industry 24 representatives attending and 74 participants on the 25 phone. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 Staff also held individual meetings and 2 conference calls with industry representatives and various 3 trade associations. Numerous meetings were held with the 4 Consumer Specialty Products Association and the Cosmetic 5 Toiletry and Fragrance Association. 6 The staff report was mailed and posted to the 7 internet on September 29th, 2006. More than 4,000 8 companies and interested parties including environmental 9 organizations received the information via the mail, and 10 over 650 subscribers received notification via the list 11 serve. 12 Staff provided a comprehensive summary of 13 industry's concerns during their presentation and their 14 plans the address them. I should add only that the car 15 enthusiasts have expressed concerns about automotive 16 cleaning products and how these changes may effect their 17 specialty cars. 18 That concludes my comments. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 20 Do the Board members have any questions? Dr. 21 Gong. 22 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Two quick questions at this 23 moment. 24 One pertains to disinfectants and sanitizers. 25 You mentioned about towelettes used in the medical field. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 What about other disinfectants that are used in hospitals 2 and clinic settings? Are they also effected by this VOC 3 regulation in any way? 4 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 5 They would be affected. The comments that we received 6 were specific to the pre-moistened towelettes. The other 7 products would be affected by this, but we haven't had 8 indication that it would cause public health concern. 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Was that specific question 10 specifically addressed by public health agencies that 11 you've consulted? 12 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 13 The Department of Health Services is aware of our proposal 14 and all of the ins and outs of it and did not have any 15 opposition to it. 16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Working in a hospital, I know 17 that we're under scrutiny to reduce medical errors, 18 infections in the hospital. So I express some concern 19 myself obviously about that. And I would encourage you to 20 really target that question about liquid, even aerosol 21 disinfectants and a medical setting. Are we diminishing 22 the efficacy of that when we're reducing the VOCs? That's 23 killing micro organisms, et cetera. 24 AIR QUALITY MEASURES BRANCH CHIEF BROOKS: Dr. 25 Gong, we worked with the Department of Health Services on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 the aerosol disinfectants, and they were in support of the 2 70 percent VOC limit that we were proposing there. For 3 the one percent limit, there were concerns about medical 4 equipment, medical settings and all of that. So we're 5 proposing an exemption for those products. And we're also 6 proposing an exemption for the pre-moistened wipes that 7 are used in the medical or veterinary facilities. 8 And we received a comment from a manufacturer 9 that the pre-moistened wipe exemption should be expanded. 10 So during 15-day -- while we're preparing the 15-day 11 changes, we will consult with that company. And we've 12 already talked to them. And see what their concerns are, 13 and we'll consult again with the Department of Health 14 Services on that issue. 15 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 16 And my second question regards the electronic 17 cleaners. I was seeking clarification why 75 percent, but 18 you're still looking into it. I didn't quite understand 19 that. What makes it so different from the others in that 20 sense? 21 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: 22 This is Carla Takemoto. 23 The electronic cleaner category, there are a 24 number of different types of products that have specific 25 end uses that are included within that category. And we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 became aware of a problem with certain products that are 2 used to clean, for example, circuit boards and things of 3 that nature that have relied on a compound that is no 4 longer being produced due to it being the stratospheric 5 ozone depleter. So we haven't come up with a suitable way 6 to have those specific products reformulated. We do 7 pending VOC exemption petitions that may take care of this 8 issue. But we believe that the extra year is warranted so 9 we can evaluate whether the VOC exemptions are appropriate 10 or not. 11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, Ms. Berg. 13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 14 On slide 5, could you just clarify for me the 15 legal meaning for preserve product form? 16 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 17 This is Dave Mallory of the staff -- go ahead. 18 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE: This is Bob Jenne. 19 The product form means that physical form of the 20 product such as aerosol, liquid, wipes, stuff like that. 21 And this is an issue that we've dealt with in the past. 22 And there's actually an opinion that we've got from the 23 attorney general's office that agreed with our 24 interpretation. 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So when we look at the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 automotive, for example, taking the technology from part 2 washers, which I don't believe is an aerosol form, to an 3 aerosol form, then would that be in conflict with that or 4 not? 5 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE: No. The issue is 6 whether aerosol form as a product form can continue to 7 exist. I think what that's talking about is a particular 8 formulation technology that's used to make the product. 9 But as long as an aerosol form can continue to exist 10 regardless of what formulation technology is used, it does 11 not run afoul of that provision in the Health and Safely 12 Code. 13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. Then also on 14 slide 7, when we're looking at the total VOC emissions, 15 are the 2010 emissions taking in consideration this 16 regulation? 17 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 18 They do not. 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I also have a few questions 21 to clarify some of this. 22 The dividing line between consumer products and 23 industrial products, I think of consumer products of being 24 something I can go to the grocery store and buy. And 25 something like a circuit board cleaner is not something PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 I'm likely to do. If it's used in an industrial 2 application where the industry may have a mechanism for 3 recovering the vapors, that comes under an entirely 4 different control program? 5 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 6 That's correct. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Window washer fluid, is 8 there a single compound that's used in that? Or is there 9 a choice of alcohols I think that can be used. Is the 10 photochemical reactivity part of the consideration? 11 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 12 This was strictly a mass way of looking at it. There are 13 several compounds that can be used. But we were strictly 14 looking at the mass VOC reductions. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I don't know if there are, 16 but if there were a low photochemical reactivity compound 17 which a supplier wanted to use, would that be allowed to 18 count in some way? 19 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: 20 This limit is not based on incremental reactivity. But 21 just so you know, Dr. Sawyer, the VOCs that are used in 22 these products are fairly low reactive on the overall 23 scale. But there would be no additional credit given for 24 using a lower reactive VOC. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And I assume nobody asked PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 for that type of a break. 2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: 3 No, they did not. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Inventory, the 5 projected growth in future years, that's based upon 6 population or change in the market or -- 7 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 8 Population, yes. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And where the efficiency or 10 efficacy of a product might be diminished by its 11 reformulation, did you take into consideration that people 12 might use more to make up for the fact that it didn't work 13 so well? 14 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: In 15 specific cases, that could be considered if it is brought 16 up to us. But generally, we set limits where products 17 make similar claims and have market share, therefore it's 18 assumed they meet the basic function and can continue to 19 work at those levels. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 21 Are there any more questions from the Board 22 members? Ms. Berg. 23 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just want to make sure I 24 understand one of Dr. Sawyer's points on the electronic 25 circuit board. If a manufacturer is claiming those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 circuit boards, that falls under a different rule than 2 over-the-counter -- of course, I can't imagine. I have a 3 hard enough time turning on my computer. But buying 4 something to clean my computer circuit board, is that what 5 we're talking about? Do I understand that correctly? 6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: 7 Well, there are consumers such as ourselves that probably 8 would take on the task of trying to clean their computers. 9 But I believe that what you said initially is 10 correct. If you are using an electronic cleaner directly 11 in the manufacture of a computer or some other electronic 12 device, that is not covered by our regulation. But if you 13 were to go into a computer repair store and they would 14 clean your circuit board at the repair store, that would 15 be covered by our regulation. 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, Ms. D'Adamo. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I have a question, and I 19 think I already know the answer to this. But when I go 20 shopping for household cleaning products, for example, 21 I've always befuddled about what to buy, thinking that if 22 it smells bad, it's probably worse for the environment 23 than if it doesn't spell as bad. I don't know that's -- 24 in fact, I doubt that that's the case. 25 I know years ago we were exploring the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 possibility of a green label. And I haven't heard any 2 talk about that recently. But just wondering if there's 3 any way to get additional information out to consumers who 4 perhaps want to go further than the regulation. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: In the 2003 State 6 Implementation Plan, we did include a measure -- perhaps 7 it was the prior State Implementation Plan for examining 8 labeling. And there was a supposition that with the 9 proper labels people would choose low VOC products and we 10 would able to claim emission reductions. 11 When we got further into labeling, we were 12 befuddled by how to communicate what was low VOC, what was 13 low toxicity, what was non-stratospheric ozone depleting, 14 what had low greenhouse gas effects, et cetera and the 15 amount of space available on the labels. And then also 16 there were no compelling studies about the effect on 17 consumer behavior. The effort ran aground. 18 There's still interest that we pursue it. We 19 haven't got it under development at the moment. It's sort 20 of there as a possibility. And we might pick it up again 21 at some point. But we spent a couple of years trying to 22 make something happen and couldn't quite come to 23 resolution on what would be effective. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm wondering if the 25 information is there but it's just too complex to put on a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 label, could we put out information to consumers that want 2 to know more and would be willing to go through a handout? 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We could look at 4 that approach, too, like we have a website for green cars 5 and so does U.S. EPA. So there's places to look for that 6 information, not on a label itself. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Let's begin the 8 public testimony. The first three witnesses will be Doug 9 Raymond, Elaine Chang, and Lee Lockie. 10 Mr. Raymond. 11 MR. RAYMOND: Thank you very much, Dr. Sawyer and 12 members of the Board. I'm here today representing several 13 companies that could not make it. The first one is the 14 National Aerosol Association. 15 I'd like to say we appreciate everything that the 16 staff has done. As they showed you, they went through an 17 enormous amount of paperwork, an enormous amount of data, 18 and were very cooperative for most of the regulation. 19 Special thanks to David Mallory. He spent a lot of time 20 working with us, and we appreciate that. 21 Going on to the electronic cleaner. I'm here on 22 behalf of AGC, Solvay, DuPont, and the Honeywell Company 23 to support the 15-day resolution. 24 Just to clarify a little bit of what you were 25 asking about between industrial and consumer, there's a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 very gray area between industrial and service or 2 commercial type work. If it is strictly manufacturing, it 3 is exempt. But if it is used in any type of commercial 4 type application, for example, if it was used in telephone 5 industry or somewhere else, it would actually fall under 6 the consumer products reg. So we really do believe that 7 this one year is warranted. This is a very small but 8 important nitch. 9 Second issue is for the automotive maintenance 10 products. I'm here on behalf of Radiator Specialty who 11 will have a representative here and will talk. 12 We support the resolution as it is. It's 13 basically a win-win situation. The State will eventually 14 get its 10 percent. But originally we will get the 20 15 percent which is needed for the emission reductions up 16 front. 17 We thank the staff for continuing to work. The 18 same thing for the WD40 company with the general purpose 19 degreaser. The time was needed. They can meet the 20 original 20 percent in two years, but they need the extra 21 four years for the 10 percent. And as you know, WD40 is a 22 California company. 23 And lastly, for the Claire Company, we'd like to 24 support the general purpose cleaner category of 8 percent. 25 We believe the 8 percent will let them produce effective PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 and efficient product. I'm here to answer any questions. 2 CHAIRPERSON PETERSEN: Thank you very much. 3 Ms. Chang. 4 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 5 presented as follows.) 6 MS. CHANG: Good morning, Chairman and members of 7 the Board. Thank you for the opportunity to address you 8 this morning. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. CHANG: I have a few slides to help me move 11 through quickly. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. CHANG: The district staff has two very 14 specific recommendations this morning. The first will ask 15 you not to delay the category specific related to general 16 degreasing and automotive cleaning for the 10 percent. We 17 believe 2008 is achievable. 18 Secondly, we ask you to as part of your adoption 19 resolution to direct the staff to consider 2.5 percent, 20 similar to what we have in our district Rule 1171 for 21 general cleaning. We have had that 2.5 percent in place 22 since 2003, and I'll explain to you why. 23 --o0o-- 24 MS. CHANG: We will urge you to consider these 25 four issues before you make your decision today, and I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 will go through them quickly. 2 --o0o-- 3 MS. CHANG: As your staff pointed out that 4 consumer products is a single largest category in the 5 South Coast, also in the state, but also I'd like to point 6 out to you when you compare the second largest, the 7 passenger vehicle category, consumer products almost twice 8 as big as the second largest. In fact, based on your 9 latest and 2007, the second category 51 tons become 34 10 tons. It's almost three times. Only one-third of 11 consumer product. So you have done a great deal of work 12 in the automotive in passenger cars category. If we need 13 more additional reductions, we know which category to look 14 for. 15 --o0o-- 16 MS. CHANG: The next issue is regarding our 2003 17 AQMP amendment. As staff indicated to you, this proposed 18 rule is to fulfill your 2003 Air Quality Management Plan 19 commitment. You have to commit 169 tons VOC and NOx 20 combined. As of today, you achieved 51 tons, about 21 one-third of commitment by 2010. Today's five tons per 22 day will help close the gap somewhat. But if you look at 23 the specific commitment for consumer product, you are 24 short nine tons per day. Today's five tons will help to 25 close the gap again, but should be done before 2010. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. CHANG: If we look beyond the 2010 3 commitment, if you look at potentially the ozone reduction 4 needed by 2020, we need to get 50 percent beyond what's 5 currently already adopted. So significant challenge ahead 6 of us that we need to seek the opportunity to do the 7 reduction soon. 8 --o0o-- 9 MS. CHANG: Lastly, we don't believe the delay is 10 warranted. My colleague, Ms. Lockie, will explain the 11 technical feasibility and the cost effectiveness. 12 We understand the delay doesn't mean you forgo 13 reduction. But our concern is if we push the 14 implementation date beyond 2008, very likely we're going 15 to come back for the second and third round of reduction 16 in consumer products. This will eventually push us off 17 the planning horizon of 2020. So we want you to consider 18 that. 19 Lastly, a few months ago, we're here debating 20 potential ozone benefit of .8 tons of VOC reductions 21 versus a residual per cancer risk in the ambient air. We 22 believe this is a time to maximize the reductions and at 23 the earliest possible date. The delay will cause 24 approximately three tons in the South Coast air basin 25 alone. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 2 Question, Ms. D'Adamo. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On slide 4, 112 tons per 4 day compared to the other categories, does that include 5 consumer use of pesticides? 6 MS. CHANG: Not in consumer products, no. 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Good morning. On the 10 cleaning solvent rule, the 1171, aren't there some 11 industries where we're having some challenges on that low 12 VOC, like the printing ink industry and things likes that? 13 MS. CHANG: That's correct. But for the general 14 cleaning specific automotive cleaning, 25 gram per liter 15 or 2.5 percent being in place, and we have found no 16 problems. 17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And that pretty well takes 18 that product to acetone. 19 MS. CHANG: Acetone or water based. 20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. Thank you. 21 STATIONARY SOURCE ASSISTANT CHIEF BARHAM: I'd 22 like to jump in here just a second. To Ms. D'Adamo's 23 question about consumer products, I believe it does 24 include the pesticide component. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. That's kind of what PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 I thought. 2 STATIONARY SOURCE ASSISTANT CHIEF BARHAM: 3 Consumer use of pesticides. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm aware of efforts being 5 currently undertaken by the Department of Pesticides. And 6 I know that Ms. Terry has been working closely with them 7 on some reformulation issues as it relates to agriculture, 8 but I'm not familiar with those reformulation issues in 9 the consumer product category. I'm assuming if they're 10 reformulating for one, they're reformulating for the 11 other. Would there be any associated benefits with the 12 reformulation? 13 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE: What Department of 14 Pesticide regulation regulates is when you spray 15 pesticides on crops, their plan is to reduce those VOC 16 emissions. What the consumer product regulation covers is 17 the consumer use of pesticides. So when you go to Home 18 Depot and you see all those pesticides up there the 19 consumers buy, that's pretty much what our regulation 20 covers. It's a different universe of sources. And maybe 21 someone else can answer if there's technology transfer 22 between the two areas. I'm not sure whether there is or 23 not. 24 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: Maybe I could 25 just address where DPR is going at this point in time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 And reformulation is one of the three strategies they're 2 looking at. Number one, they're looking at a lot of 3 changes to application techniques. Secondarily, a major 4 emphasis is on fumigants, which is the single methyl 5 bromide household products. So there isn't a lot of 6 overlap. But certainly we've encouraged the agricultural 7 production pesticides to go down a similar path as we've 8 done with consumer products to look at the opportunities 9 for reformulation. 10 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, it's been a while 11 since I looked at these numbers. But I know awhile ago I 12 saw a chart that indicates pretty high VOC coming from 13 consumer usage. So just wondering if we could look into 14 this further. Application changes are pretty challenging 15 in the consumer product area with industrial use, 16 agricultural use. I think it's a little easier to change 17 habits, because they can go through training and that sort 18 of thing. But household use is another matter. So we'd 19 be pretty much stuck with reformulation. So I'm wondering 20 if staff is looking into that any time soon. 21 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 22 Yes. Currently, we have several limits for aerosol 23 household pesticides. And those limits had come into 24 effect very recently, and they get an extra year due to 25 federal and State registration. So we have not surveyed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 those products recently. However, we intend to do that in 2 a survey next year. At that time, we'll have the data 3 necessary to evaluate whether further reductions are 4 appropriate for the aerosol household pesticides. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Something else 6 that's changing in the consumer market is the delivery of 7 the product out of its container. There's different 8 technologies being applied there. So you're not asking 9 the consumer to do something different, but the way it 10 gets out of the bottle or the can causes there to be less 11 excess emissions. 12 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION FLETCHER: This is Rob 13 Fletcher. If I could just add one other comment. Just to 14 be clear, the DPR tons that they're looking at 15 reformulating and looking at refumigating are not covered 16 in the 112 tons per day. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Mr. Lockie, and then 18 we will have Katy Wolt, Julia Quint, Virginia St. Jean. 19 Oh, I am sorry. Excuse me. Ms. Lockie. 20 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 21 presented as follows.) 22 MS. LOCKIE: Even some of my best friends may try 23 that. 24 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 25 Board. My name is Lee Lockie. And I'm with the South PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 Coast AQMD. And I'm following Dr. Chang to explain some 2 of the reasoning behind our opposition to this particular 3 portion of the proposal being considered today. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. LOCKIE: The categories that we're going to 6 be talking about -- and by the way, I've noticed this 7 morning that there's one that's missing from this list. 8 We're primarily concerned about the delays, as Dr. Chang 9 mentioned, in automotive cleaning. We do support the 10 proposed seven percent VOC limit for adhesives. And our 11 concerns are automotive brake cleaners, carburetor 12 cleaners, and also engine degreasers, as well as the 13 general purpose degreasers, and the establishment of the 14 interim limit of 20 percent and the delay in the 15 implementation of the 10 percent. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. LOCKIE: The primary reason is that since 18 1999 when our Rule 1171 came into effect, the technology 19 was established and since that time has been widespread at 20 actually well below 10 percent VOC content. It's been 21 tested and proven in many facilities. And our inspectors 22 have gone out recently and actually confirmed this by 23 visiting particularly the automotive dealerships who are 24 required to use 25 grams per liter if they're large users. 25 And they often choose to use the aerosol products. So PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 these products have been successfully reformulated and are 2 in use. And they might require a little bit more engine 3 or a little bit more elbow grease, but they're working. 4 So it's been tested in facilities, and they are 5 also cost effective. Very comparable in cost to the 6 previous high VOC materials. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. LOCKIE: This is just a list of the types of 9 the manufacturers. There are numerous manufacturers who 10 have been geared up to market these products in South 11 Coast for five to ten years. 12 --o0o-- 13 MS. LOCKIE: Now, as I said, they're already 14 available. Rule 1171 requires that the use for large 15 users of 25 grams per liter. Many dealerships, small 16 users, can use higher VOC products, but they must be in 17 compliance with the CARB limits. And the large 18 dealerships often choose not to do the record keeping that 19 keeps them under that limit as a small user. So most of 20 them that we've visited in South Coast have chosen to use 21 the compliant materials subject to 25 grams per liter. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. LOCKIE: And in conclusion, with respect to 24 adhesives, again I want to point out that we support the 25 proposal. And we find no technical concerns with the 10 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 percent by 2008. We think it's adequate time. 2 And I thank you very much. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would staff comment upon 4 what we've heard, the 10 percent sooner issue? 5 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Particularly the third 6 slide. 7 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: I 8 guess I will attempt to comment on that. Most of these 9 products that we're talking about are in aerosol form. 10 And to go from around 45 percent VOC down to 10 percent 11 VOC is actually a pretty remarkable change. And we 12 believe that going down to 10 percent in an aerosol 13 product, it is going to require a change from probably an 14 organic solvent-based technology to water-based 15 technology. And water-based technology in aerosol form, 16 it is challenging. And we believe that given the number 17 of products that need to be reformulated, the R&D 18 necessary to do that, and given that most of the companies 19 that make a brake cleaner also make products in every 20 other category. And we believe that that additional time 21 is warranted to get through their full line of products. 22 Ms. Lockie also referred to that they may require 23 a little more elbow grease. There is going to be a 24 training component within this. Because while the 25 products will work, they are going to work differently. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 And there's going to need to be time to train the end 2 users and get them used to the new technology. And that's 3 why we believe the extra time is warranted. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 5 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: If you could just go 6 back and comment explicitly I guess on their -- I don't 7 know if we have the third slide. The one which begins low 8 VOC. It's the next one. Right, that one. 9 If staff would comment directly on these three 10 points, that one, there are complying products available. 11 They have been tested, are cost effective. You agree with 12 these three conclusions or not? 13 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: I 14 think in general we do agree that there are starting to be 15 some products on the market at 10 percent VOC. And 16 frankly, that was the result of the research study that we 17 talked about in the presentation earlier, showed that we 18 could get an aerosol product with about 10 percent VOC. 19 And yes, these products were tested in facilities. It was 20 a field study. And we are aware that in some businesses 21 in the South Coast they are using these very low VOC 22 aerosol products. And we believe that with time and 23 production increases that they will become cost effective. 24 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: How widely used are 25 these products in the South Coast? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 MS. LOCKIE: The compliant aerosol products are 2 used by most of the automobile dealerships who have chosen 3 to use the compliant aerosol product in large quantities. 4 And the technology transfer has occurred from the 1999 5 amendments, almost seven years ago, when they came into 6 effect. So there are numerous manufacturers, and they're 7 widely used throughout the industry in the South Coast air 8 basin. And this has been confirmed by our recent field 9 inspections. 10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Staff will 11 have to provide the percentages. But our surveys show 12 that the products are there. They're a small percentage 13 of the market. Most of the major manufacturers that 14 you'll be hearing from later do not currently make those. 15 And really what the discussion is over how much time do 16 you afford the industry to change over and what's the best 17 course to do that. 18 We in the South Coast I think agree on the final 19 limit. We felt that it was prudent to provide a 20 significant amount of additional time over our regional 21 proposal to ensure that the products that get out there 22 and the manufacturers stand behind work and to work with 23 the industry that isn't using them, the small shops, the 24 consumer users, and others. And I think you'll hear 25 testimony later about the doubts and problems that some of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 the manufacturers feel they'll have if we were to go ahead 2 with the original proposal. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I guess the thing I'm 5 struggling with is that we've had five, six years going to 6 school in the South Coast air quality area, and why do we 7 need another six to eight years? If we have -- I mean, 8 Ford Motor -- some of these companies that they have 9 listed aren't small companies. This isn't a nitched 10 market. And so why is it that we need another six to 11 eight years? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Carla, do you 13 have the percentage of the market penetration right now? 14 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: 15 Well, our most recent data is from the 2003 calendar year. 16 But our data show that when we look at a product with 10 17 percent VOC content that there is a very, very low 18 complying market share, maybe three or five percent of the 19 market. So they are not widely used. They are not widely 20 accepted. And we believe that that additional time is 21 warranted to I guess get the end users used to the change 22 and how the product is going to come out of the can, how 23 the product is going to behave, and how you're going to 24 have to work with the product to get the cleaning to 25 occur. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Ms. Lockie, do you have any 2 market statistics? The automotive refinish and repair 3 industry in your district should be pretty significant 4 compared to the rest of the state. Do you have data? 5 MS. LOCKIE: I don't have the exact number of 6 facilities with me today. But I can tell you that 80 to 7 90 percent of the auto repair facilities, large and small, 8 are using the technology that has been transferred to the 9 aerosol spray technology right now. And they've been 10 doing it since 1999. 11 We believe that this can easily be made 12 widespread in the two-year period that they've proposed 13 initially for the implementation of the 10 percent. 14 Enough of the large users have been using this. There are 15 many manufacturers who are supplying these materials and 16 can easily gear up for more widespread distribution and 17 training. 18 STATIONARY SOURCE ASSISTANT CHIEF BARHAM: I'd 19 like to clarify that. This is Bob Barham. 20 What we found when we looked at the South Coast 21 products were primarily the way that they complied was 22 through reformulation to acetone. And what we're looking 23 at is reformulation ultimately to water-based solutions. 24 And that's where the problem lies, is that transition to 25 the water-based product, getting it into the can, getting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 it out of the can, getting it not to react in the can. 2 There are a number of technical issues that have to be 3 addressed as part of this transition. And that's as 4 described earlier is why we believe more time is 5 warranted. 6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And the acetone product is an 7 extremely flammable product. 8 STATIONARY SOURCE ASSISTANT CHIEF BARHAM: Yes. 9 It is. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: For the purpose of my fellow 11 Board members, that is an important component. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Could I ask staff 13 to go over the two-step phase-in where staff is proposing 14 in 2008 there would be a 20 percent limit down from 45 15 percent today, and then in four more years, the 10 16 percent. Can you go over your logic for that two-step 17 phase-in? 18 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: 19 We worked extensively with the industry on what would be 20 involved in reformulating all of their product lines and 21 reformulating down to 10 percent. And I believe that the 22 manufacturers will tell you that given time that the 10 23 percent is feasible and that is what we've heard from the 24 industry. And they asked for that additional time because 25 of how the products will behave. It is a different PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 technology. But they also have agreed that we need 2 emission reductions in the near term. And I believe that 3 you will hear that they are in support of the step down to 4 the 20 percent VOC product, and we believe that that 5 interim limit is going to get us the majority of the 6 emission reductions anyway, going from 45 to down to the 7 20 percent. We're going to get the lion's share of the 8 emission reductions. And the 10 percent is out there in 9 the future, and we're going to get that too. 10 We think that going to 20 percent there will 11 probably still be organic solvent-based products out there 12 that they will use -- continue to use a lot of acetone to 13 make those products. But we think that the extra 10 14 percent is going to be a major technology change for them, 15 and we're going to believe that they should have that time 16 to do that. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 18 Ms. Wolt. 19 MS. WOLT: Good morning. My name is Katy Wolt, 20 and I'm Director of the Institute for Research and 21 Technical Assistance. It was my organization that did the 22 project that focused on developing and demonstrating 23 alternative automotive aerosol cleaning products that 24 would meet the 10 percent VOC limit. And my comments 25 today focus on the automotive aerosol cleaners. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 I strongly support the original proposal that the 2 staff put forth which was to phase the VOC content from 45 3 percent to 10 percent by 2008. And I strongly oppose the 4 staff/industry compromise that would allow an interim of 5 20 percent and extend the compliance date out to 2012, 6 which is more than six years from now. 7 And I oppose the extension and phase down for 8 three reasons. First, as you heard from Elaine Chang and 9 Lee Lockie from South Coast Air Quality Management 10 District, there are many facilities in the South Coast 11 basin that are already meeting the 10 percent limit. In 12 fact, it's a much lower limit they are meeting, a limit of 13 25 grams per liter or about 2.5 percent. 14 Now over the last decade, I've worked with 15 hundreds of auto repair facilities on various different 16 types of cleaning operations. And it is primarily the 17 large dealerships right now who are using these compliant 18 products. And they've been using them for well over 19 two years. And they are using them routinely on a daily 20 basis. And they are operating productively. So this 21 demonstrates that there are these alternatives that have 22 been demonstrated in practice. So there is no reason to 23 wait six more years. 24 Second, allowing the delay will exacerbate an 25 environmental justice issue. Many of the solvents that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 are used in the high VOC aerosol products that are being 2 used today are also classified as toxic air contaminants, 3 such so toluene and xylene, methyl alchohol and hexane. 4 Many of the workers in auto repair facilities are 5 people of color. And many of the people who live in 6 communities surrounding the auto repair facilities are 7 people of color and they are low income. They are being 8 exposed on a daily basis to these materials, and they pose 9 a toxic risk. By going down to 10 percent in 2008, you 10 would actually reduce or eliminate this toxic risk. 11 Third, I'm concerned about the tone of the 12 industry comments. Since this compromise with the staff 13 was reached, the industry says that they will comply with 14 the 20 percent interim limit and the 10 percent limit, but 15 only if it's demonstrated that this can be achieved in 16 practice. That seems to me that it gives them an out to 17 say that it hasn't been demonstrated in practice. And we 18 know that's not through from the South Coast experience. 19 So in summary then, I would just urge the Board 20 to adopt the original proposal that phases the VOC content 21 down to 10 percent by 2008. And these materials that meet 22 this limit are already available, and we can reduce the 23 risk to community members and workers in doing it more 24 quickly as well. The Board should even consider -- 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 please. 2 MS. WOLT: Yes. 3 I would ask suggest that the Board consider a 4 future amendment that would reduce the VOC content lowered 5 to two and a half percent. 6 Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. Ms. Quint. 8 MS. QUINT: My name is Julia Quint. I'm a 9 toxicologist. And although I've spent most of my career 10 as a government scientist working to prevent chronic 11 illness and disease for workers, I am speaking on my own 12 behalf today. And I want to urge the Board if possible to 13 adopt the original proposal of 10 percent by 2008. 14 And I want to just say briefly that the reason I 15 have joined others that have come here to give these 16 comments is that I started to realize the benefits to 17 workers of VOC reductions and pollution prevention in 18 general after some mechanics suffered nerve damage when 19 n-Hexane was formulated into brake cleaners as it had 20 never been done before. And we had auto mechanics 21 suffering peripheral neuropathy. It was at that point I 22 started working with CalEPA, U.S. EPA, the Institute for 23 Research and Technical Assistance, and South Coast to make 24 sure this unintended consequence never happened again. 25 And we have successfully collaborated. I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 participate on technical advisory groups. And we had a 2 U.S. EPA sponsored project in automotive repair and 3 disseminated information promoting the use of water-based 4 and less toxic solvents in aerosol products. So I think 5 the benefit although it isn't the mandate of CARB or any 6 Environmental Protection Agency to consider workers, it's 7 not by mandate either in the work I do on a daily basis to 8 consider outside air. But I do now, because I think 9 integrating those two concepts is extremely important and 10 ultimately will benefit small employers, because these are 11 very technical issues. 12 When you talk about chemicals, nobody can 13 pronounce them or understand them. The regulations we do 14 have in place are offered not in -- have find it hard to 15 comply, say the data sheets are hard to understand, the 16 formulations change, training doesn't occur on the health 17 hazards. All of this is very complicated and especially 18 for small businesses. So we can work together by reducing 19 VOCs, and from my perspective, decreasing health risk to 20 workers. 21 So thank you very much for listening to me. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 23 Ms. St. John, and then we will have Doug Raymond, 24 Harry Zechman, and Mark Kubiak. 25 MS. ST. JEAN: Thank you, Chairman and members of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 the Board. My name is Virginia St. Jean. I'm an 2 industrial hygienist with the San Francisco Department of 3 Public Health. I am a hazardous materials regulator but 4 we are implementing green awards program for small 5 businesses in San Francisco. We have specifically been 6 working with Dr. Wolt and Dr. Quint on communicating the 7 safer alternatives to automotive industries in 8 San Francisco that tied in with the solvent change for 9 stationary parts washers in the Bay Area. 10 Now, in San Francisco, they have reduced their 11 VOC limits for stationary parts washers for the automotive 12 industry to less than 50 grams per liter. And that has 13 successfully converted the automotive industry in 14 San Francisco to water-borne parts washers almost across 15 the board. Fabulous implementation of a local regulation. 16 But the problem is I've seen a real resistance to 17 get rid of aerosol use. Now aerosol automotive cleaners 18 are great. They're very effective, but they're a very 19 high risk exposure to the workers of the solvents within 20 the container. 21 I'm not exactly sure we need aerosol containers 22 to begin with, number one. We're extremely concerned 23 about the toxicity of the ingredients we're seeing in the 24 aerosols to meet the current VOC compliance. These are 25 Prop. 65 chemicals, as my predecessor mentioned. They're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 quite toxic. And they're toxins, carcinogens. They're 2 Prop. 65 listed. There's really no reason to have 3 ethylbenzene in these things in these parts washers 4 anymore. Pump sprays work very well. There are 5 automotive washing cleaners. There's all sorts of ways of 6 parts washing out there. 7 Without risk communication to the automotive 8 industry about the hazards of these solvents -- granted 9 that is very difficult. Teaching toxicity about 10 chlorinated solvents and neuro toxins, that's not easy. 11 But our automotive repair facilities in San Francisco have 12 asked for information on how to safely choose aerosols 13 that will work. Now, they actually asked for training on 14 which solvents would you be most concerned with 15 purchasing. Very simple. We gave them a little cancer 16 communication sheet. Avoid the Prop. 65 chemicals. Avoid 17 the n-Hexane. It was great. 18 I'd also like to see less use of aerosols in 19 general. I find it's a very convenient way for the auto 20 repair industry to degrease. But I believe pump sprays 21 and aerosols in general are not -- I mean, they're 22 environmentally unsafe. The container creates a lots of 23 waste. It's a manufacturing issue to make these 24 containers. We have propellants that aren't necessary. 25 They're polluting the environment. And we're looking for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 the ingredients within that we're trying to push out of a 2 container. A pump spray could do the same thing. An auto 3 repair shop could easily dunk these parts into a 4 stationary parts washer. And that's been proven 5 successful. The industry has accepted that in 6 San Francisco. And I believe we're a safer city as a 7 result. I encourage the original proposal. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 9 Mr. Raymond. 10 MR. RAYMOND: Well, good morning again, Dr. 11 Sawyer, members of the Board. This time that I'm up here 12 it's not so pleasant. I'm here to opposes one section of 13 this regulation. And that is the rubber and vinyl 14 protectant definition change. There are several issues 15 they would like to bring up. But to start with, I'm 16 representing the NAA, Stoners, Meguiars, and the Claire 17 Company. 18 I'm going to keep my comments to just a couple of 19 issues which are the process, the inconsistencies with 20 this, the lack of clarity. And you will hear from Harry 21 Zeckman from Stoners and from Mark Kubiak from Claire on 22 the technical issues. 23 To begin with, at the beginning of this 24 presentation you saw that the staff listed numerous things 25 they did to do this process. Unfortunately with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 rubber and vinyl protectants, the process was not clear. 2 It was not transparent. There was numerous facts that 3 were missing. For example, the definition change does not 4 list what products are impacted. It does not list what 5 companies are impacted. They did do a survey. I asked 6 repeatedly for that information for that survey. I was 7 given that information two weeks ago. That information 8 showed that only eight manufacturers were surveyed on this 9 issue. 10 In 1997, when this issue originally came up, 11 there were 14 manufacturers with 18 products that were 12 actually surveyed. Now there's only eight. So what we're 13 saying here is there's a lot of information that is not 14 here. 15 What I'd like to really get to is the 16 inconsistency with this regulation. In 2004, when the 17 staff came in front of the Board with CONS-1, they treated 18 footwear and leather care products that were in an 19 aerosol, had a resin as aerosol coatings. 20 Just for a little bit of background, I've worked 21 in this industry for the last 17 years. I was very 22 involved with putting in the aerosol coating regulation, 23 which is the only regulation to date that deals with 24 reactivity, which I believe is the only proper way to deal 25 with the VOC issue. So putting these products into the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 aerosol coating regulation I believe is proper. 2 If you take a look at the staff report from 2004, 3 it clearly said anything with an aerosol and that had a 4 resin and that produced a sometimes invisible film was 5 considered under the aerosol coating regulation. That is 6 exactly what we're talking about here with the tire 7 coating product. If you take a look at the protectant or 8 the aerosol footwear and leather care product compared to 9 the tire coating, they are almost identical formulation. 10 And now they're being treated separate. 11 I have a couple more points. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude, 13 please. 14 MR. RAYMOND: Okay. Well, just to conclude, the 15 staff has acknowledged the fact that there has been a 16 drafting error. It brings in a lot of other categories. 17 We would also like to see the word "tire coating." This 18 resolution almost does it. The fact that it says tire 19 coatings are considered tire dressings is inappropriate 20 and not consistent with the 1997 technical support 21 document. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 23 Mr. Zechman. 24 MR. RAYMOND: Do you have any questions? 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Apparently not. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 MR. ZECHMAN: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer, and 2 members of the Board. My name is Harry Zechman. I'm 3 Technology Manager for Stoner, Incorporated. I've come 4 before you to speak about our concerns relative to CARB's 5 proposed change to the rubber and vinyl protectant product 6 category definition. Stoner is a small, family-owned 7 business located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Stoner is 8 also a 2003 recipient of the Malcolm Baldrige National 9 Quality Award. 10 Stoner has been working closely with the ARB 11 staff for approximately two years on this issue. We've 12 provided data through written correspondence and have 13 traveled to Sacramento numerous times to give technical 14 presentations to staff. 15 We have a product that will be substantially 16 impacted by this proposed change. Our product is more 17 shine long-lasting tire coating. This product is a tire 18 coating and is currently subject to the aerosol coating 19 regulation. The product meets the definition of a coating 20 since it contains a resin and produces a contiguous film. 21 Tire coatings are a relatively new type of product and 22 evolved to meet market needs since the introduction of the 23 original tire dressings in the '90s. Tire coatings are 24 products that coat the tire with the contiguous flexible 25 film to provide a satin or high gloss finish. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 ARB staff states that tire dressings were to be 2 considered in the rubber and vinyl definition originally. 3 Tire coatings are uniquely different from typical tire 4 dressing. 5 In summary, the apparent intent of the rubber and 6 vinyl regulation is to include products which perform any 7 of the following characteristics: Protect, shine, clean, 8 renew, restore, revitalize, enhance, gloss, rejuvenate. 9 More importantly, there seems to be intent that the 10 regulated products somehow alter the product's substrate 11 by absorption of compounds in the product. Therefore, 12 aerosol tire coatings are a different product than was 13 intended to be regulated. Aerosol tire coatings do 14 protect and enhance the appearance of the substrate. 15 However, an aerosol tire coating does not clean, 16 revitalize, rejuvenate, or restore the substrate. Aerosol 17 tire coatings simply coat the surface of the tire. 18 In today's marketplace, many aerosol products 19 exist for use in footwear and leather care. Several of 20 these products are currently classified and have been 21 classified as aerosol coatings and not consumer products. 22 Our product is very similar to these products, except it 23 is applied to tires, whereas these products are applied to 24 shoes and other footwear items. 25 In conclusion, aerosol tire coatings are not tire PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 dressings. Thus, tire coatings should continue to be 2 regulated as aerosol coatings. ARB has not released 3 information to support their position on this proposed 4 change. The inconsistencies between the definition and 5 the technical support document need to be corrected to 6 provide clear reasoning for the change. Due to the 7 concerns stated above, ARB staff should defer this action 8 until a new comprehensive survey is completed. This will 9 allow for an informed decision to be made. 10 Thank you for your time and consideration of this 11 issue. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 13 Ms. Berg. 14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I have spent a little bit of 15 time on this. And I would like to just quickly get 16 staff's input. And where I'm confused and I keep 17 vacillating is the definition of the coating versus a 18 protectant and those other characteristics. 19 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 20 Well, I think in the definition of rubber and vinyl, it 21 specifically addresses products put on rubber and tires. 22 And the aerosol coatings regulation never mentioned this 23 substrate or this kind of product. In our view, the fact 24 that the tire is shined, it really doesn't matter whether 25 it's a coating or not. But the basic function is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 performed here. And that is spelled out specifically in 2 the staff report as justification for the rubber and vinyl 3 protectants definition when it was adopted. 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Are we going to take a 5 similar position in the foot care and leather? 6 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: We 7 are not, because in contrast for that category, the 8 aerosol products were specifically called out in aerosol 9 coatings regulation. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Well, is this by hindsight 11 that it wasn't added for the tire? I don't see that as a 12 compelling reason not to look at it for tires. I mean, to 13 me, is there a need for a coating on tires as there is a 14 need for coating on shoes? Or is the VOC issue great 15 enough that we're going to say to consumers that we won't 16 do tire coating in California? And then why wouldn't we 17 do something similar on shoes? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Berg, rather 19 than getting lost in the force of definitions, we take a 20 step back and say, what is this market segment? And are 21 we treating the participants in this market segment 22 equitably? What we meant to do was address the VOC limits 23 that come from polishing tires. And it's a particular 24 segment of the emission inventory the way we count the 25 tons and whatever the formulation is to polish the tires, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 we wanted to reduce VOC from that. And so we don't go 2 from the definitions hour to the tons, we do the 3 segmentation of the inventory by the kind of activity that 4 it is and try to treat people fairly within it. So it 5 would actually be anti-competitive to use this 6 definitional oddity to back out certain products. 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: What we found 8 was that there are the vast majority of the products used 9 to do this function are low VOC. The manufacturers are 10 testifying they offer both VOC and low VOC complying 11 products. They do it differently, and we have to decide 12 is the fundamental result so different as to justify the 13 higher VOC? And our view is it's not, that the consumer 14 desires and needs will be met with the low VOC products. 15 There may be some change in performance, but it was 16 adequate to meet the demand. And therefore, we feel it 17 should be regulated as a single category. And we don't 18 get into the could we call it an aerosol coating dilemma. 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And I understand that 20 argument and understand how we reach that. I want to make 21 sure that we're consistent in other categories as well. 22 And so I would just encourage as we move along that that 23 consistency and that logical progression remain 24 consistent. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We are bringing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 you another consumer product regulation next year so you 2 have a chance to revisit other categories and see whether 3 we're holding them to comparable standards. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I have a question also. 5 I'll have a little bit of a hard time understanding how 6 much of this has to do with how the product is applied 7 versus what is actually going onto the tire. I must admit 8 that when I first put protectants on my tires, it was with 9 a brush. I assume we would not have a lot of VOCs and 10 propellants associated with that. And then next I go to a 11 pump, hand pump type application, and this is a spray can. 12 Is that right? Is that the big difference? 13 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 14 Yeah. There's complying aerosol products also at 10 15 percent. These products in question are well above that. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The only reason 17 we get into conversations about product form, Dr. Sawyer, 18 is that when the consumer product statutes were passed, 19 the Legislature prohibited us from banning aerosol cans, 20 for example. So we couldn't say there is a water-based 21 liquid product that is superior to all the aerosols and 22 just get rid of the aerosols. We have to do the best 23 aerosols can do, the best that a liquid product can do, 24 the best that a product can do so those forms get to stay 25 in the marketplace. And that's just a decision the State PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 Legislature made. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Thank you very much. 3 Mr. Kubiak. 4 MR. KUBIAK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 5 members of the Board. My name is Mark Kubiak. I am with 6 Claire Sprayway, Incorporated. I'm the R&D manager. I'm 7 also representing Claire, Incorporated, as we're owned by 8 the same holding company. We appreciate the opportunity 9 to speak today on behalf of this rulemaking for consumer 10 products. 11 In consideration of time constraints, I will 12 limit my comments to two categories. The first category 13 is the general purpose cleaner aerosol. I'd like to say 14 that both Claires and Sprayway support staff's position on 15 the eight percent VOC limit to this category. This will 16 provide us with a product that will meet the customer 17 standards. 18 The second issue is the rubber and vinyl 19 protectants definition. Claires manufacturers tire 20 coatings which are different from tire dressings in that 21 they contain a resin form of film. These products are an 22 enhancement of the tire dressing and should be considered 23 under the MIR limit of the aerosol coating regulation. 24 Tire coatings also expel much less product to get the same 25 effect as tire dressings. The change in the definition PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 will ban these products. 2 Claire was not notified of any survey on this 3 category. So to be fair to all, this change should be 4 deferred until the aerosol coating categories are surveyed 5 next year. 6 In closing, Claire and Claire Sprayway, 7 Incorporated, look forward to working with staff on 8 possibly some rewording of the rubber and vinyl 9 protectants definition. Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 11 Next we'll have Joseph Yost, Eileen Moyer, and 12 Laurie Nelson. 13 Mr. Yost. 14 MR. YOST: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer, honorable 15 members of the Board. My name is Joseph Yost. I 16 represent the Consumer Specialty Products Association, or 17 CSPA. In summary, of the 15 different product categories 18 with new VOC limits that are being proposed, CSPA 19 represents companies that make 13 of those product 20 categories. 21 As an initial matter, I'd like to commend the 22 staff for their extraordinary efforts they took to ensure 23 an open and transparent rulemaking. As ARB staff has done 24 in past rulemakings, they took extra effort to ensure that 25 any potentially interested stakeholder had an opportunity PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 to participate in this rulemaking. 2 During the past 15 years, CSPA has worked very 3 effectively and very cooperatively with ARB staff as they 4 have developed the regulations that, as noted in the 5 presentation, have produced more than 170 tons per day of 6 VOC emission reductions. This is a remarkable 7 achievement. And to comply with these very comprehensive 8 regulations over the past 15 years, the consumer products 9 industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to 10 reformulate our products to meet the ARB's very aggressive 11 VOC limits. While CSPA worked effectively with ARB staff 12 and other stakeholders on issues related to this rule 13 making, we have several minor issues that I'd like to 14 address -- and major issues I'd like to address that we 15 would like to continue to work with ARB staff during the 16 15-day period. 17 First is liquid disinfectants and sanitizers. 18 CSPA urges the Board to give ARB staff additional time to 19 develop unambiguous regulatory language to ensure that the 20 very stringent proposed limit of one percent VOC for these 21 two product categories applies only to those products that 22 have the sole purpose of disinfecting and sanitizing 23 surfaces and not other currently regulated products. 24 Without a necessary clarification in the most 25 restrictive limit provision of the current regulation, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 CSPA would have to respectively oppose the proposed limits 2 to avoid the elimination of important public health 3 products. For floor waxes and polishes, CSPA believes the 4 one percent limit is not technologically or commercially 5 feasible for all product limits. 6 Therefore, we ask the ARB to direct staff to 7 continue to work with industry to develop a narrowly 8 tailored sub-category for specialized products that in use 9 will produce no more VOCs than products currently meeting 10 the one percent limit. During the pendency of this 11 review, we agreed to work with -- accept the one percent 12 across the board limit based on ARB staff willingness to 13 consider submissions under the innovative product 14 provision and the product control plan. On the four 15 automotive products, CSPA has significant concerns with 16 the proposed limit of 20 percent. It will be a very 17 difficult target for us to meet. We need the additional 18 time for the 10 percent. And you will hear our companies 19 identify specifically why they need the additional time. 20 In conclusion, CSPA members agree to accept the 21 tough but challenging standards the ARB is currently 22 proposing. Let the record of this rulemaking clearly 23 reflect the fact these are very stringent and 24 technology-forcing requirements. 25 CSPA looks forward to continuing to work with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 staff as they continue to go forward to help produce the 2 type of reduction necessary to achieve clean air for all 3 Californians. Thank you very much for this opportunity. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 5 Ms. Riordan. 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Staff, on his first issue 7 of the definition, I wasn't sure. Maybe you'd like to 8 respond to that. 9 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 10 Their key concern here is that products that were subject 11 to cleaning and other limits are now subject to the one 12 percent, because they make cleaning and disinfecting or 13 sanitizing claims. We intended to subject products to the 14 one percent that were not previously regulated under 15 cleaning categories, and we believe and agree that there 16 is clarifying language necessary that we need to work 17 on to clearly state that these one percent limits are only 18 to disinfectant and sanitizer products that do those 19 functions solely. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So essentially what I hear 21 you saying is you will work on getting those definitions 22 in the 15-day comment period. 23 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 24 That's correct. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 MR. YOST: Thank you again, Dr. Sawyer. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Moyer. 4 MS. MOYER: Good morning. My name is Eileen 5 Moyer. I'm Director of Regulatory Relations for Reckitt 6 Benckiser. Reckitt Benckiser is the marketer of Lysol 7 disinfectant products, Old Engine furniture care products, 8 Easy-Off Oven Cleaner, and Easy-On Spray Starch. These 9 are categories that are being regulated during this 10 process. 11 We've been working very closely with staff to 12 find appropriate limits that are technologically and 13 commercially feasible. And I think we've reached some 14 agreements on many of the categories. 15 We're in support of the 70 percent VOC limit for 16 aerosol disinfectants. And our company has been working 17 for many years to find a way to reduce the VOC limit in 18 Lysol disinfectant spray to have a product that emits less 19 VOCs, but is just as efficacious as the product we are 20 currently selling. So we do think the 70 percent limit is 21 a viable limit that will help to protect the home user as 22 well as the institutional user. 23 We have the same concern that CSPA did with the 24 one percent limit. And while we accepted the one percent 25 limit based on the premise it would apply only to liquid PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 sanitizers and disinfectants that were manufactured 2 specific for that purpose, we did have the concern with 3 the most restrictive limit provision. And we will 4 continue to work with the ARB staff during the 15-day 5 period. So I'm not going to belabor that point. I think 6 everyone understands the issue, that that limit is not 7 feasible for products that disinfect and clean or have 8 other purposes. 9 With that, I just want to thank the ARB staff for 10 working with us. I think that we have very good proposals 11 in the categories our company has an interest in, and we 12 look forward to continuing to work with them during the 15 13 day and in the future for the future regulatory processes. 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 16 Ms. D'Adamo. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: On this issue of a product 18 that disinfects and cleans, does staff think that some of 19 the manufacturers could get around this if they have a 20 product that disinfects only, could they just market it as 21 something that disinfects and cleans if we were to make 22 this change? 23 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: I 24 think this is something we need to work with them on. 25 Adding a cleaning claim could subject them to a four PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 percent rather than a one percent. But we don't think 2 that they have the motivation to do that. These products 3 are specifically marketed as disinfectants or sanitizers 4 in contrast to cleaners. But it's something that we will 5 monitor. And if we see the problem starting to arise in 6 further surveys, then we intend to address it. 7 MS. MOYER: If I can just clarify too that the 8 majority of the products that serve only to disinfect or 9 sanitize are sold in the institutional market. The 10 consumer market has exceptionally few products that only 11 serve that purpose. You have Lysol spray and you have a 12 few liquid products. But what it would do is bring in a 13 lot more product categories. I don't think you'll see 14 manufacturers change the demand, because the demand is 15 different in the two marketplaces from the institutional 16 janitorial market from the consumer. And consumers like 17 products that do more than one purpose, particularly when 18 it comes to cleaning and disinfecting. So you're not 19 seeing those sole use product in that retail market as you 20 are in the institutional. I think the survey bore that 21 out as well. 22 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: In 23 addition, these products all have to go through rigorous 24 federal and State registration and testing. So a simple 25 label change is extensive works and takes a long time and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 would require fees and new testing and a number of hoops 2 to jump through. It's not simply throw a new claim on 3 there and go along. 4 AIR QUALITY MEASURES BRANCH CHIEF BROOKS: But we 5 agree that you do have to be careful in the language so 6 there's no circumvention. That's why we're asking for the 7 time before we issue the 15-day notice to work out the 8 right language and run it by all parties and make sure 9 we're okay. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Nelson, and then we'll 11 have Gregory Johnson, Andrew Hackman, and Edward 12 Piszynski. 13 MS. NELSON: Dr. Sawyer and honorable Board 14 members, I'm Laurie Nelson. I am here today on behalf of 15 Johnson Diversey. And we wanted to comment on the one 16 percent across the board VOC limit for flexible and 17 non-resilient floor polish wax products. 18 And we are a market leader in this category. We 19 have captured 20 percent of the market. And in fact, we 20 are larger than the next eight companies combined in this 21 category. We pride ourselves on our expertise and our 22 knowledge in this category, and we believe we're cutting 23 edge quality leader. 24 We also believe it's important to know that the 25 Board knows that JD is committed to the environment. A PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 couple of examples, we're in the Healthy High Performance 2 Cleaning Program. We participate in the U.S. Clean Green 3 Building Program, LEED. We have a green product 4 certification with Green Seal. We have a number of other 5 things, but we are committed to the environment. And we 6 also understand the challenge the Board is up against in 7 having to look at every product category and to get the 8 maximum feasible reductions. 9 But given that, we also believe that for premier 10 performance products in this category, they are 11 specifically designed to require varnishing as a part of 12 their maintenance. And we think they do deserve a 13 subcategory. They extend the service life of these 14 products that requires a minimum three percent VOC amount. 15 It's three times as long lasting as the one percent 16 product category. 17 We have worked extensively with your staff on 18 this issue. We've been trying to develop a subcategory, 19 and we're convinced these products meet a very specific 20 need in the marketplace. And that is for acceptable 21 appearance, flooring protection, minimal business 22 disruption, and also to maintain a safe surface for the 23 public. And these qualities are especially key in areas 24 like retail, hospitality, health care like hospitals and 25 also government facilities, especially those that are open PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 24/7, because floor polishers, they require multiple 2 coatings. You have dry time in between each coating. 3 It's very labor intensive. But we think if you go with 4 the one percent, you could have economic impacts both on 5 business and government. 6 I want to make three quick points on that. One 7 is that the use of these products will not result in 8 increased emissions because the three percent products 9 last at least three times as long as the one percent VOC 10 products. You also have less emissions from the 11 reapplication and the strippers necessary to remove the 12 product. 13 Secondly, JD is not asking for a free ride on 14 this. Even when the three percent sub-category, we would 15 have to reformulate a significant portion of our products, 16 costing the company millions of dollars. 17 Finally, and this is unfortunate, but we've been 18 trying to work with the staff to develop a sub-category. 19 And we have been unable to clearly differentiate between 20 these two. So today we are not before you to ask to 21 disapprove the one percent across the board, but we are 22 asking for two things. One is it is our commitment to 23 work with you and the staff to look at alternative 24 compliance plans, to look at the ACP, the innovative 25 product exemption. And secondly, to ask that should we be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 able to differentiate in the future, we're able to come 2 back to the Board and to ask for the one percent/three 3 percent split, or the ACP IPP provisions are not feasible 4 that we come before you again and have this discussion. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 7 I think I would like to ask staff to respond to 8 this. I assume that you disagree with the idea that three 9 percent lasts three times as long. 10 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: 11 Well, we have not been able -- we've worked very 12 cooperatively with Johnson Diversey and others, and I 13 think they'll agree that we met numerous times trying very 14 hard to break these products out and find some sort of 15 criteria that could specifically identify them as 16 different. And together, we could not do that. So we do 17 not have any technical information whereby we could break 18 out this category. 19 The consumer products regulation has a couple of 20 different flexibility options. One of them is the 21 innovative product provision whereby if you can show your 22 product over the life of its use emits less VOC over time, 23 then you can demonstrate that and formulate a product 24 above the limit. And we have discussed this in great 25 detail with this company. We think that this is a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 promising option here for these type of products, because 2 they can demonstrate that they will emit less over time. 3 But there's work to be done there. It's not a rubber 4 stamp process, and it will take testing and various other 5 options. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 7 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 8 This is an ignorant question. I don't think I've 9 have burnished. I don't know -- if I did, I didn't know 10 it. I'm sorry. I'm not apologizing. Can you just 11 explain what burnishing is for me? 12 MS. NELSON: We have our technical experts to 13 talk about burnishing. 14 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: If 15 you had burnished, you would know it. 16 MR. BOWER: David Bower, Johnson Diversey 17 technical director. 18 Burnishing means that you use a high-speed 19 buffing machine. You might have seen janitors or other 20 people in the building walking around with these machines 21 that actually buff the floor. It's similar to buffing a 22 car with the lambs wool applicators. So you get the shine 23 back. It's the same process that's done to the floor in 24 that regard. Mechanically, you can repair the surface, 25 get it back to a restored look without having to reapply PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 the product. You would have actually less emissions 2 because you use less product. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. I have burnished. 4 (Laughter) 5 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Could staff specifically 6 comment on the two requests that were made, so I 7 understand what they're requesting and what our position 8 is? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Nelson was 10 requesting that should we not be successful at using the 11 innovative product provision or alternative compliance 12 plans that the Board be open and staff be open to 13 revisiting the one percent limit for products that require 14 burnishing. She's putting down a marker for a possible 15 rule revision in the future. 16 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: So we're okay there? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're okay there. 18 It's a marker. We didn't commit to change the rule. 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I understand that. 20 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: That covers both items on 21 her list. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. 23 MS. NELSON: It does. I'm just up here because 24 it was an oversight. I just wanted to stay your staff has 25 been marvelous on this issue. We have put a lot of phone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 calls into them. They returned all of them, and we really 2 appreciate it. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 4 Mr. Johnson. 5 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer and members 6 of the Board. I represent the Sherwin-Williams Company 7 today. We manufacture many consumer products in quite a 8 few categories and market them through several 9 distribution chains in the state of California. 10 Today, the particular product category that I'd 11 like to talk about is the rubber and vinyl protectant 12 category. As you heard earlier, there are a number of 13 products in this category. Some have chosen to formulate 14 to the aerosol coating regulation. Others have chosen to 15 formulate to the category regulation, and these are two 16 different things. One is an IMR limit and one is a VOC 17 limit. 18 When we looked at this definition in this 19 category, it seemed obvious to us that the intent here was 20 to cover products that enhanced tires and maybe protectant 21 rubber, that sort of thing. And tires were specific. So 22 we endeavored to produce products that met the category of 23 10 percent limit. And even though we're the largest 24 aerosol coatings manufacturer in the country, we didn't 25 try to develop an aerosol coating tire product, because we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 did not feel like it met the intent of the category or the 2 regulation. 3 So we would like to come out in support of the 4 staff resolution to clarify this definition. And we look 5 forward to working with them to do so so that this issue 6 straightens itself out. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 8 Mr. Hackman -- or excuse me. Ms. Berg. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Could I just ask a quick 10 clarification of you? Are you in support of the limit as 11 written? And the clarification you are asking for on the 12 aerosols is to not pull in any other intended products? 13 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, ma'am. 14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Or are you asking for the 15 coatings to include the tire? 16 MR. JOHNSON: The first. We believe that the 17 limit that's in place now is appropriate. And we've 18 manufactured products to meet that limit. And we don't 19 intend to make coatings to try to make that limit. 20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But you are still concerned 21 that there might be some definitional problems that might 22 pull in some other products that are unintended other than 23 tires. 24 MR. JOHNSON: We make a large number of clear 25 coating products. We don't market any of them PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 specifically for tires. 2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And you want to make sure 3 they don't get pulled into this specific rule? 4 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, ma'am. Look forward to the 5 discussion. 6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Hackman. 8 MR. HACKMAN: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer and members 9 of the Board, ARB staff. My name is Andrew Hackman. I'm 10 here on behalf of the Automotive Specialty Products 11 Alliance, or ASPA. We are an alliance of three national 12 trade associations, and we have over 55 members, the 13 majority of which will be impacted by the regulations that 14 are before you today. 15 We appreciate the work of the staff on the 16 resolution and the proposed changes that you've seen this 17 morning. And we appreciate the hard work that they've 18 done with us hearing our concerns and working with us on 19 these very challenging standards. 20 Our members manufacture many products that will 21 be directly effected by these regulations including 22 freight cleaners, carburetor and fuel injection cleaners, 23 engine degreasers, general purpose degreasers, and 24 windshield washer fluid. Now we believe that all these 25 products are absolutely essential to the proper PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 maintenance and consumer safety in vehicles. 2 Specifically, brake cleaners are essential to cleaning 3 brake parts and ensuring the vehicles stop when you press 4 on that brake. And you want your brakes to stop when you 5 hit that brake, certainly. 6 And carburetor and fuel injection cleaners are 7 essential to cleaning fuel systems. They are registered 8 with EPA and have to go through a series of reviews there 9 as well, and they are essential to cleaning fuel systems 10 and allowing tailpipe emissions to go down as well. 11 Engine degreasers remove grease and different 12 particulate matter from engines. They allow engines to 13 run at cooler temperatures and are also essential to 14 reducing tailpipe emissions. 15 General purpose degreasers are essential in very 16 many different variety of surfaces and automotive 17 maintenance operations and crucial to be able to be used 18 in a wide variety of surfaces. 19 Windshield washer fluid is crucial to driver 20 visibility in salty and cold conditions as well as rainy 21 conditions. 22 We believe the standards that were proposed this 23 morning are extremely challenging and very difficult to 24 meet. We think that is witnessed by most of these 25 categories have less than five percent of the market share PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 currently complying with these standards. 2 We've surveyed our members and also feel like in 3 the South Coast area we've seen product sales decline 4 after the adoption of Rule 1171 and the application of 5 this standard. And some of our members will address those 6 sales issues specifically later on. 7 In fact, we believe these standards are so 8 challenging and technologically difficult for our 9 companies that it could prove to be technologically and 10 commercially infeasible at some point later on. 11 Therefore, we support the review of these 12 regulations 18 months prior to the adoption of the 13 standards. We believe that this additional time for the 14 20 percent and 10 percent standards are absolutely 15 necessary because for small and medium-size companies -- 16 and I know we had a list of larger companies that are seen 17 as having the resources. But we do have a significant 18 majority of members that are small, medium size that are 19 going to have to shift research and development technology 20 capabilities from our parts of our operations to 21 reformulate an entire line of products. For some 22 companies, this is their entire line of products. And 23 they are a small company and have to deal with this in a 24 very expeditious manner. 25 Finally, we do want to support the 25 grams PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 windshield washer limit. We think it is also very 2 challenging, and we believe it can be met in the time 3 frames provided. 4 Finally, in conclusion again, these standards are 5 very challenging. We strongly believe that the additional 6 time is necessary to our companies to reformulate and 7 manufacture products this meet these standards. Thank you 8 very much. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 10 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: As long as I've been on 11 the air quality stuff, the general industry request is we 12 need more time. We need to study this more. 13 But let me ask particularly about the automotive 14 cleaners that the South Coast identified that are in place 15 that seem to be working. What would you say to that 16 premise? 17 MR. HACKMAN: The way the Rule 1171 is 18 structured, if a facility uses more than 160 fluid ounces 19 of an aerosol product per day, they have to then comply 20 with 25 grams per liter standard. So not all facilities 21 go above that 160 fluid ounces per day. We're talking 22 about larger facilities that are using those products. 23 And we believe that the standard itself, we've seen a 24 decline in sales for those companies that have tried to 25 remanufacture products for those specific areas. We don't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 believe that the standard is in effect being applied fully 2 across the region because of the 160 fluid ounces. 3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Are not there -- I mean, 4 they've identified a number of suppliers of this kind of 5 cleaner? 6 MR. HACKMAN: And some of those suppliers are our 7 members. And they'll talk later on about the decline in 8 sales they've seen in these product categories. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 10 Mr. Piszynski, and then we'll have Adam Selisker, 11 John Ehlert, and Ron Fausnight. 12 MR. PISZYNSKI: Dr. Sawyer, members of the Board, 13 thank you very much for this opportunity. I am Vice 14 President of Laboratory Services for Bridgeview Aerosol, a 15 company that is a formulator and private label packager of 16 many products in the Aerosol product form. And a number 17 of the -- our customers are people who have been 18 identified as marketers of products being sold in 19 California falling into these categories. 20 I want to commend staff and support their 21 proposed revision to the aerosol automotive maintenance 22 products areas, because these products, while the limits 23 that are being proposed are somewhat similar across the 24 board for all four categories, I need to point out that 25 each one of these categories represents a specific type of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 formulation for a specific end purpose. And in the 2 aerosol product form, this provides a tool for the end use 3 of the product for the end user in the application of the 4 material. 5 We have presently been, as has been pointed out, 6 at a certain VOC level. And we see there are very major 7 challenges present in order to provide the efficacy and 8 usefulness for these products to the end user. Each one 9 of these categories will produce a specific requirement to 10 maintain that the end user is satisfied with the 11 performance of the product and the challenges and the 12 re-education that will be necessary in the marketplace is 13 going to be significant. It is our belief as formulators 14 and packagers that staff has properly approached this 15 situation and that we feel that we will necessarily need 16 all of the time that is being proposed in order to provide 17 the benefits of the products to our end users and to 18 continue with the technology requirements in the future. 19 I thank you very much. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. I think this 21 would be a good time to take a break for our court 22 reporter. And we'll resume with the three people who I 23 called earlier. This will be a ten-minute break. We'll 24 resume at 10:40. 25 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We will now resume the 2 public testimony with Mr. Selisker. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer, as 4 the witnesses are coming forward, staff had a couple of 5 comments they wanted to make about the phase-in proposal 6 and some of the testimony we've heard and see if we can 7 elucidate a little bit more on the difference between our 8 perspective and the proposals what's exactly going on in 9 the South Coast. Mike Scheible is going to comment on 10 that. 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Just to try 12 to put everything in perspective on what's before the 13 Board and the various views being expressed. 14 The modified staff proposal would deliver 70 15 percent of emission reductions from these categories by 16 the original date and would delay for several years the 17 achievement of the final 30 percent of the emission 18 reduction. So it would step down from 45 to 20 and then 19 10. 20 The reason why we did this is we looked at a 21 number of complying products and companies. There are in 22 each category approximately 100 products that need to be 23 reformulated. And that's times four separate categories 24 here. And the amount of work to do that and convert to 25 the water system which we think is the way ultimately the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 industry would need to go -- could best go for the 10 2 percent takes more time than the 2008 date allowed. 3 Also, I think there could be some confusion over 4 what's in play in the South Coast and how widespread the 5 aerosol complying products are. As far as I understand 6 from staff, you will find very few of these products if 7 you go out to the typical auto shop or other place where 8 auto parts are sold. They're sold into the South Coast 9 because their rule requires larger shops -- includes a 10 provision that prevents the shops from circumventing the 11 South Coast's districts rules that require very low 12 solvents typically used in baths by simply using consumer 13 products. So those shops have the option of either using 14 a complying consumer product in very low volume, a low VOC 15 alternative, which I think you'll hear some of the 16 witnesses talk about, because they're the manufacturers of 17 them, or using their bath cleaning system. That's not 18 available obviously to most people at the home level or 19 that buy many of these products. 20 So on that, we thought that securing 70 percent 21 of the emission reductions by the plan date, allowing more 22 time which we think greatly enhances the chances that when 23 the manufacturers can be successful and not have their 24 businesses disrupted; and second, that the consumers will 25 find acceptable products out there. And we won't have the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 problem of coming back in a couple of years with a 2 situation where we do not have the kind of products that 3 the consumers expect to have was worth it. Obviously, we 4 don't like the fact that we delayed the emission 5 reductions of the second half of the regulation. That's 6 not something that's positive about this. The positive 7 side is we greatly increase the chance that it will work, 8 work well, and work without disruption to the industry. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 10 Mr. Selisker. 11 MR. SELISKER: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer, members of 12 the Board. Good morning. My name is Adam Selisker. I am 13 the Vice President of Technology for CRC Industries, 14 Incorporated. 15 CRC is a chemical special needs manufacturer and 16 packager for automotive, industrial, marine, and aviation 17 purposes. CRC's interest today lies in the automotive 18 categories, the automotive maintenance categories and the 19 electronics cleaners. We do support the two-step process 20 in the automotive categories, the '08 and further reaching 21 out to '12 compliance. And we also agree with the 22 electronics moving out one year. 23 Let me just focus for a minute on brake cleaners 24 if I may. Brake cleaners are a very important part of 25 vehicle maintenance and safety. As Andy Hackman mentioned PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 earlier, when you push the peddle, you want to stop. It 2 is very important for us as we formulate brake cleaners to 3 make sure these products work, work well, and do not leave 4 residue on the brakes. 5 We believe that going from 45 percent to 20 6 percent is a huge challenge. And we'll make that 7 challenge in '08. And we believe it's an even bigger 8 challenge to go from 20 to 10. We are committed to do 9 that. We are committed to do that to reduce VOCs. We are 10 committed to do that to reduce the use of toxic air 11 contaminants. We do need that R&D time. Someone 12 mentioned from staff earlier we're one of the companies 13 that have product in many of these categories. We have to 14 spread out our R&D resources over all the categories to do 15 the reformulation. It's very important that we have the 16 time to do it right and do it right the first time. 17 In the electronics cleaning area, as I mentioned 18 earlier, we do agree with moving that out. There is some 19 definitional issues we need to get through, and we think 20 we'll have the time to do that proper reformulation by the 21 end of '07. 22 The last thing I wanted to say is in response to 23 the South Coast issue, we are one of the manufacturers 24 that has a South Coast product. We've had it for 25 approximately five years. The feedback we get and our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 easiest feedback is by sales. Our sales have decreased in 2 that product by almost 50 percent in five years. At the 3 current rate, we would probably discontinue that product. 4 The reason for discontinuing that product is the 5 feedback we get is the product does not work. It is an 6 idling charged acetone product. Acetone as we've heard 7 earlier is commonly used, and we need to do different 8 technology. We need to come up with new ways to meet the 9 10 percent, because we're not getting the market 10 acceptance this product deserves. Thank you. 11 I do want to just say -- I'm sorry. You know, 12 the staff has been very helpful in working through these 13 issues. I really need to say that they are interested. 14 They are interactive and patient with us. It is very 15 difficult for us at times to articulate our needs and 16 concerns. And they really do take the time to listen and 17 they do call us back. And we appreciate that. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Your former customers who 19 have stopped using your product, what are they doing now? 20 MR. SELISKER: We sell through distribution. 21 It's possible that one of our concerns is that they're 22 going to different things, using non-VOC compliant 23 products. And we're also concerned that they may just 24 move away from this kind of technology. We're not really 25 sure how they're getting their job done. And at least in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 brake cleaning, it's a big deal to make sure that you're 2 using products that are designed for brakes. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 4 Mr. Ehlert. 5 MR. EHLERT: Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board, 6 I certainly appreciate being here. My name is John 7 Ehlert. I'm Chief Operating Officer for Berryman 8 Products. 9 First and foremost, I would like to echo Adam's 10 statement about the staff members. They have worked hand 11 in hand with us as we look at this difficult challenge we 12 have ahead of us here with regards to reformulating the 13 process. They have listened. They have participated. 14 They have asked a lot of difficult questions, afforded us 15 the opportunity to try to respond. And we certainly 16 appreciate that. 17 These categories mean a lot to our company. They 18 represent a significant piece of our business. These 19 challenges are immense. They're not easy. We do support 20 the recommendations of the staff. We believe we can get 21 there given some additional time. And we again believe 22 that through the allowance of that time we can get to 23 products that will maintain the performance, because it is 24 extremely important, whether it's brake cleaners stopping 25 that vehicle, the liability to us if those products don't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 work. And we have a constituent that happens to have a 2 product that doesn't perform, an accident happens, we face 3 the liability issues. 4 The same thing certainly holds true on carbon 5 choke body cleaners. If those products don't work, an 6 accelerator sticks because we didn't properly clean that 7 product, all of a sudden we have a serious accident on our 8 hands. And again we face the liability issues. 9 We are committed to making this happen. Our R&D 10 team is working on it. We can get there given this 11 additional time. But without the time, we would have a 12 serious problem. 13 To echo what Adam stated about the products in 14 South Coast, we as most of the manufacturers introduced a 15 product. It's virtually acetone. Acetone simply is not 16 working. Our product it also diminishing rapidly in 17 acceptance and overall sales. And it's on the verge of 18 being eliminated. 19 So again, just to echo, we support the 20 recommendation of staff. We look forward to participating 21 with them should there be additional challenges to get 22 there. We feel we can get there. And again hope the 23 Board will recognize their recommendations and move 24 forward. Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I asked this question in 2 ignorance. But if your product is not being used as much, 3 how is the job getting done? 4 MR. EHLERT: We again are not absolutely certain. 5 We sell through distribution as well. So we have limited 6 contact with that actual end user. We see the diminished 7 sales activities. It has continued to fall off. We are 8 very close to the same declining rate of almost 50 percent 9 of the volume. 10 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: So it's not the question 11 of what happens at the place. It's the question that the 12 product is not being bought. 13 MR. EHLERT: The acceptance is not there, because 14 acetone will not perform the job that can be performed by 15 some of the other solvents that are currently used in the 16 broader-based lower VOC acceptance product. We feel that 17 through the extension of time we can get to some type of 18 water-based cleaning materials for both -- actually for 19 most of these categories other than the electronic 20 cleaning. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 22 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I guess the question is for 23 staff regarding comments by the two speakers that just 24 came up regarding, I guess, the marketing of these two 25 products -- similar products. It's not finding PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 acceptability by the public doesn't necessarily equate to 2 efficacy. I think I said that right. So they could still 3 work. It's that they're not being purchased, ordered I 4 guess. But looks like they're pointing their fingers a 5 little bit at acetone based as the active ingredient. 6 Would staff like to comment on that? Is acetone that 7 ineffective or is it effective? 8 TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECTION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: 9 Acetone is a very good solvent. It's an exempt VOC 10 solvent. But it does have some issues in that it 11 evaporates rapidly. In some cases, it evaporatives so 12 quickly that you don't get the cleaning job done. And 13 that's why I think the commentor is suggesting that you 14 need some undercurrent technology. You probably need some 15 other organic solvent that has a different evaporation 16 profile that allows the degreasing or cleaning to occur. 17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And question for the speaker 18 then. The R&D process, it takes X number of years, from 19 what I gather. Why does it take that long, per se, if 20 you're just changing the percentages? And I'm sure you, 21 like any laboratory, you probably would, you know, look at 22 different percentages as well, not just the lowest but 23 even lower than that perhaps just to see what the results 24 would be. 25 MR. SELISKER: And I don't claim to be our R&D PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 expert, so I'll only touch on it. And if we've got 2 specific questions, I certain -- we've got Ed or others 3 here who can answer that on behalf of industry. But the 4 challenge is as you look at reformulating these and you 5 look at aerosols, it's a very unique package. You're 6 putting materials in there under pressure. It takes 7 exhaustive testing to get through to find the right blend 8 of those materials that will stay in that can without 9 creating a larger safety issue of having a reaction within 10 that container that causes the cans to either explode or 11 having something of that nature take place, because you 12 have a reactivity in the can. Those materials under 13 pressure react differently. 14 We need the time to get the formulations that 15 work, work efficiently, and will continue to provide the 16 performance that our professional end users and heavy 17 do-it-yourselfers expect. They're going to find a 18 solution. Our fear is they're going to go back to 19 reaching out, getting a can of gasoline, trying to clean 20 it with a brush. We have worse issues then. We need to 21 have products that perform, perform effectively. 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And staff can 23 concur that our past experience in regulating aerosols, 24 that's the most difficult area. Because you not only have 25 to get a product, but once you get it out, be sure it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 works. When it's in the can, it's stored. There's 2 interactions. There's been regulations where we've, for 3 example, come back to the Board and had to amend the 4 regulations, because the technology didn't work out with 5 the aerosol portion. And the way State law is set up, 6 it's a product form that we have to preserve. So the fact 7 that you could do the job differently doesn't allow us to 8 say you don't need this form if it's got a consumer 9 market. 10 BOARD MEMBER GONG: But as was stated by the 11 South Coast people, some of that at least with acetone 12 reformulation seems to be already out there in a safe 13 format. 14 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think it's 15 out there. And people are doing the work. But in the 16 shop they have the bath with the low VOCs. So they have 17 other options for getting the job done. So I think that's 18 what you're seeing. 19 And in terms of I guess the marketplace is the 20 ultimate test. If you put the best product out there you 21 can make and it doesn't sell, that's telling you there's 22 something else out there that's working better or there's 23 another technique. And it's not really something that we 24 can bank on as saying if we force everybody in that 25 direction we'll have happy consumers and happy PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 manufacturers, in addition to the VOC reductions. 2 MR. SELISKER: And again just offer up, I would 3 again state that these typical end users, whether it's a 4 professional or the heavy do-it-yourselfer, are a creative 5 lot. And I think again they would find an alternative 6 source. They're going to use non-VOC compliant products 7 and create even a worse situation if we're not provided 8 the time to get to the right answer, the right solution, 9 and provide them a product that works and works well. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 11 Mr. Fausnight, and then we'll have Larry Beaver, 12 Sean McNear, and Jason Williamson. 13 MR. FAUSNIGHT: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer and members 14 of the Board. I'm Ron Fausnight. I'm the technology 15 focal point for Shell Global Solutions. We're the 16 technology group that does the product formulation and the 17 product performance evaluations for Shell Oil products. 18 Our retail brands are well known. They include Rain X 19 Blue Coral, Fix-a-Flat, Gumout, and others. 20 My particular concern here is carburetor and fuel 21 injection air intake cleaner and aerosol product. Our 22 experience is that consumers will typically spray these 23 products directly into a running engine to use them. This 24 allows consumers to clean the throttle body or the 25 carburetor without disassembling the actual engine. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 disassembling is very time consuming and also beyond the 2 capability of many of our customers. 3 It's critical that the products clean deposits 4 inside the air intake system without building deposits 5 further into the fuel system. Cleaning deposits in the 6 throttle body and moving them into the intake ports or the 7 intake valves does not necessarily result in the clean 8 running engine that the consumer desires. The 9 consequences of increased deposits in these areas can 10 include increased carbon monoxide emissions, increased 11 hydrocarbon emissions, and reductions in fuel economy. 12 These reductions in fuel economy also translate into 13 higher carbon dioxide emissions. 14 It's important that the product formulation 15 components not only clean effectively with low VOCs, but 16 they also get through the combustion process within the 17 engine without building additional deposits. Low VOC 18 components by their nature tend to burn less readily, so 19 that creates a lot of formulation difficulties. Critical 20 that the formulations are tested for performance and no 21 harm in actual operation. This requires engine testing 22 which is both very expensive and very time-consuming. And 23 that is, it's not simply mixing a formula and giving a 24 quick spray to watch it clean. There's an involved 25 testing process that must be met. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 There's a substantial conflict between the three 2 goals, burning completely without creating issues further 3 in the engine, and providing low VOCs in the actual 4 initial cleanup itself. 5 We've heard how parts cleaner processes and elbow 6 grease can solve some of these issues, but that doesn't 7 address the cleaning within the engine when it's not 8 disassembled. And we've also heard how -- I have one 9 short conclusion. We've also heard how larger companies 10 and auto makers support these products, but we've also 11 seen that additive products are specifically not 12 recommended by many auto makers, but also sell the same 13 additive product. That doesn't necessarily tell the whole 14 story. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 16 Mr. Beaver. 17 MR. BEAVER: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and members 18 of the Board. I'm Dr. Larry Beaver, Vice President of 19 Technology at Radiator Specialty Company. Radiator 20 Specialty Company is a small family-owned business that 21 has manufactured for over 82 years specialty chemical 22 products from use in the home and the shop, things such as 23 liquid wrench, penetrant and lubricant, gunk engine 24 bright, and the Soder seal product for sealing radiator 25 leaks. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 I'm here today to offer our support to the 2 proposed revisions, the 15-day proposal made by the CARB 3 staff. We believe that this is a reasonable compromise. 4 We also fully support and fully commit to work towards 5 these new deadlines. 6 I had originally intended to speak primarily 7 about engine degreaser, but the comments about brake 8 cleaner forced me to make a bit of a comment. My esteemed 9 colleagues have mentioned that sales have dropped as an 10 indication of consumer discomfort with the new formulas or 11 dislike of the new formulas. The folks in my lab talk to 12 customers every day. We're almost first stop when they 13 have a complaint. I've spoken to customers personally 14 that have used our acetone-based ultra-low VOC product, 15 and they don't like it. It doesn't work. They have to 16 use too much of it to get the job done. So you trade a 17 low-performing product, push it into the marketplace, and 18 they just use more of it. And it becomes even more of an 19 issue. So we see here a case I believe based on customers 20 that I've personally talked to where we've legislated an 21 inferior product, forced it on a customer who doesn't like 22 it. We don't want to do that again. 23 I am concerned about the engine degreaser 24 category. We fully support the staff's proposal, but we 25 need to make sure as we move forward, particularly in a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 category such as degreaser on an assembled engine where 2 you don't have the option of being able to take parts off, 3 put them in a bath. You have to make sure it works. 4 We sell through distribution to professional 5 mechanics all over the United States and Canada. Engine 6 bright engine degreaser is a staple. We have the lion's 7 share of the market. We understand engine degreasing. We 8 also know it takes very specific solvent combinations to 9 penetrate the baked-on grease and dirt on an engine block 10 and allow that to be rinsed off with a minimal amount of 11 rinseate and a minimal amount of product used. 12 As we move forward, we appreciate the Board 13 staff's work with this and their willingness to deal with 14 the issues at hand. And we thank you for the opportunity 15 to comment today. And I would ask if you have any 16 questions. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Apparently not. Thank you 18 very much. 19 Mr. McNear. 20 MR. MC NEAR: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and Board 21 members. My name is Sean McNear. I represent Honeywell 22 Consumer Products Group as a manager of regulatory 23 affairs. Honeywell Consumer Products Group produces and 24 distributes automotive aftermarket products such as 25 pressed-on car care products, auto light spark plugs, air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 filters and Bendix brakes. Honeywell employs over 3,000 2 people in 57 facilities in the state of California. 3 Honeywell produces multiple automotive products that will 4 be affected by the current proposed consumer products VOC 5 regulation. 6 This morning I will speak to the windshield 7 washer fluid category. Honeywell manufacturers the 8 Prestone deicer windshield washer fluid. This product as 9 categorized has a windshield washer fluid proposed VOC 10 limit of 25 percent in Type A areas. The current VOC 11 limit for this category is 35 percent. 12 Honeywell is committed to work with the 13 California Air Resources Board in reducing VOC product 14 categories that are commercially and technology feasible. 15 Honeywell has actively participated in the workshop 16 meetings throughout the year. And we presented the 17 information at the automotive windshield washer category 18 industry meeting on July 13th, 2006, to the CARB staff. 19 The deicer windshield washer category provides 20 very important safety benefits compared to the typical 21 blue washer fluid without refreeze protection. These 22 include attributes such as freeze protection within the 23 washer system, removal of road grime from the windshield, 24 and refreeze protection of the fluid once it's sprayed on 25 the windshield. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 As we have demonstrated in our submitted 2 comments, the cost associated with this proposed change is 3 not trivial. CARB has quoted very low costs for product 4 reformulation. Based on our experience as a formulator 5 for automotive chemical-based products, the cost of 6 reformulation ranges from double to more than eight times 7 the amount listed in Appendix A of the proposed 8 regulation. The cost is dependent on how extensive the 9 reformulation would be. 10 The change from 35 percent VOC to 25 percent is 11 not just a 10 percent reduction in VOC. One point that is 12 not very clear in the final proposed regulation is the 13 fact that the proposed 25 percent VOC limit for this 14 category will reduce the freeze point of this product. 15 There is a loss of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit. 16 In order to address the impact of this change, in 17 freeze point, some amounts of LVP solvents must be used. 18 Also, we must add other materials to the formulation to 19 provide value to consumers such as precipitation and soil 20 repellency and re-freeze protection. These changes would 21 be considered an extensive reformulation. 22 As I've stated, there are significant costs to 23 manufacturers to meet these proposed VOC limits for the 24 automotive windshield washer fluids. In a category that 25 is very cost competitive, these extra costs would be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 passed down to the consumer. Also, the new limits effects 2 overall performance which cannot be entirely recovered 3 through other ingredients. 4 Although there are formulation hurdles to 5 overcome, Honeywell supports the proposed VOC limit of 25 6 percent for the automotive windshield washer category in 7 Type A. 8 And just in conclusion, as a member of the 9 Consumer Specialty Products Association, and the 10 Automotive Specialty Products Alliance, Honeywell supports 11 the comments and recommendations on the automotive 12 categories presented to the California Air Resources 13 Board. 14 Thank you for your time and consideration. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 16 I would like to ask staff about window washer 17 fluid. It seems to me this is a very inefficient product 18 in that most cars most of the time in California don't 19 experience freezing conditions. But when you do have 20 freezing conditions, you certainly want to have your 21 windshield washers not put ice on your windshield. Are 22 there other approaches to minimizing the use of VOCs in 23 window washers or -- 24 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: We 25 have differing VOC limits in different areas of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 California. Where freezing temperatures are not likely to 2 occur, we have a one percent VOC limit. And that is the 3 overwhelming majority of the state. That would be the 4 coastal and valley areas. In the mountainous regions 5 where wintertime freezing temperatures occur often is what 6 we're looking at this time. And that's why we've afforded 7 a 25 percent VOC limit for that freeze protection. So 8 this is a fairly -- in terms of pounds of sales, it's a 9 fairly small part of the market. But it is a high 10 emitter. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And are consumers pretty 12 savvy about this in moving from one area to another and 13 not having the wrong kind of washer fluid in their cars? 14 MEASURES DEVELOPMENT SECTION MANAGER MALLORY: I 15 think that the education is going on at the retail shops 16 as we speak. I think there was an adjustment period on 17 the initial implementation of the limits. 18 But I have talked to numerous distributors and 19 auto parts companies, and they are coming on board. And 20 they do understand the regulations and when you can use 21 the low emitting and when you need the freeze protection. 22 I think that some guides such as AAA or others 23 recommend that if you're going to travel to ski areas that 24 you check your fluid and make sure you have freeze 25 protection, in addition to other aspects of travelling to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 cold climates. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: It seems like it might be a 3 good opportunity to educate the public to better protect 4 themselves and to save money, for that matter. I put 5 water in my window washers during the summer. Okay. 6 Thank you. 7 Mr. Williamson, and then we will have Norman 8 Plotkin, Douglas Fratz and Catherine Porter. 9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and 10 members of the Board. My name is Jason Williamson. I'm 11 here on behalf of Valvoline, the consumer products 12 division of Ashland, Incorporated. 13 Valvoline has greatly appreciated the opportunity 14 to work with the ARB staff on these proposals, and we're 15 very supportive of improvements to air quality, not only 16 in California but in all areas. 17 A couple of examples that I might offer are some 18 internal controls that we have placed to eliminate toxic 19 air contaminants, such as n-Hexane, in our consumer 20 product line. And also using a low VOC formulation where 21 viable in non-regulated areas outside of California as 22 well. 23 Valvoline offers a wide array of products in the 24 marketplace, not only to help consumers maintain the 25 appearance of their automobiles, but also to keep them in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 a safe and proper working order. 2 Today, I have a couple of comments regarding the 3 automotive cleaning products. Brake parts cleaners are 4 used by both professionals and amateur car enthusiasts for 5 a variety of reasons. This product line provides benefits 6 of fast and efficient cleaning, dust suppression, and they 7 are easy for the consumers to use. 8 It is a great concern of ours that if we do not 9 put in the correct research and development over the 10 longer extended time frame that the staff has proposed 11 that we may up come up with a product that is less 12 effective and more material to be used in the end 13 application. 14 One of the things that I'd like to mention is we 15 too offer in the South Coast area compliant product. In 16 the last few years, we've lost about 40 percent of our 17 sales volumes on that material. It's in danger of being 18 cut as well. 19 We're very willing to continue to explore the 20 options necessary to meet the difficult standards set 21 forth in this proposal for these and other products. 22 However, we must recognize that it will not be an easy 23 task. It will take a large investment of time and money 24 to achieve this goal. We do hope to continue to work on 25 this. And if it becomes apparent from the technical PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 reviews or from other discovery with the ARB staff these 2 limits are not feasible, that they be reconsidered at a 3 later date. Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 5 Mr. Plotkin. 6 MR. PLOTKIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 7 honorable Board members. Norman Plotkin representing the 8 Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association and the 9 California Automotive Wholesalers Association. Together 10 there are nearly 10,000 members, represent, manufacturer, 11 distribute, sell, install auto parts, equipment and 12 service. 13 We have concerns over the four categories: The 14 brake cleaners; carburetor/fuel injector cleaners; engine 15 degreasers; and general purpose degreasers, for all of the 16 reasons that have been previously articulated, but for the 17 chief among them is the brake cleaners and their potential 18 hazard that that would pose with the reduction to the 19 level indicated. We're concerned that the reductions 20 undermine the ability to effectively maintain vehicles. 21 And that's the feedback we're getting from the members in 22 the field, the men and women who actually work on the 23 cars. 24 We understand that agreement and the phase-in, 25 and we accept that. And we've gone neutral on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 proposal at this time. 2 But we want to just stress that we have concerns 3 that remain. We're hopeful that if anticipated hazards do 4 arise, as many of our folks in the field believe there 5 will be hazards associated with reduces levels of brake 6 cleaner, if the anticipated troubles do arise, that the 7 Board will have another look at this situation and 8 re-visit it. 9 So with that said, appreciate the opportunity to 10 speak. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you can very much. 12 Mr. Fratz. 13 MR. FRATZ: Dr. Sawyer, Board members, good 14 morning. My name is Doug Fratz. I'm with the Vice 15 President of the Consumer Specialty Products Association. 16 I've been involved in these consumer products rules since 17 1989, the very first rule. And despite the continuing 18 excellent and professional work of your staff, this 19 probably has been the most difficult one yet to date. 20 Before I continue, I wanted to address -- go back 21 very early in the session and address an issue that is 22 growing emissions of consumer products growing with the 23 population of California and the projections that have us 24 being the number one VOC source in the South Coast after 25 2020. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 This is a situation that we're certainly 2 concerned about, as you are. And I think it's important 3 to understand, however, that we are a very low reactivity 4 source. And if you look at our actual ozone impact at any 5 point during there, it's much lower then you would expect 6 based on our actual emissions. And we in fact in the late 7 '90s did some computer modeling and found that even 8 reducing -- even eliminating all of our consumer products 9 emissions we wouldn't have a measurable impact on the 10 economy surface standards and the compliance with the 11 standards. We are still dedicated to working every way 12 possible to reduce both our emissions and our reactivity 13 and our ozone impact in general. 14 The new VOC limits proposed are very, very 15 challenging. It would require us -- it's going to require 16 industry to have 1,000 to 1200 products reformulated most 17 in the next two years. There will be 100 companies trying 18 to do this. Those companies include many small and 19 mid-size companies that have very limited R&D staff. 20 There's going to have to be significant staffing in these 21 companies. It's going to cost overall according to your 22 staff's estimates around $200 million for our industry to 23 do this. This is not a small commitment we're making to 24 work with you on this. 25 There are very significant challenges specific to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 these various products, given obviously the automotive 2 maintenance products have to maintain safety and effective 3 maintenance. Floor polishes have to maintain both 4 protection and a safe walkway surface. The disinfectants 5 and sanitizers have to kill the pathogenic organisms that 6 are needed for the various surfaces. All of our products 7 have a various special benefits that have to be 8 maintained. We can't fail. 9 We have to also keep our brand names strong. For 10 many of our companies, their brand names are their most 11 important asset. So we're taking on this very significant 12 undertaking, and we don't know that we're going to 13 succeed. But we are committing to work as hard as we can 14 to succeed. And if we do fail, then we will come back to 15 you and work out -- want a commitment to work out how we 16 can both succeed in this endeavor. Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 18 Ms. Berg. 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I think we've heard a couple 20 of times on the reactivity issue. And I'd appreciate a 21 comment from staff as to how we see that we're moving 22 forward on reactivity issues with the VOC type products. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: California 24 innovated marginal incremental reactivity adjustment 25 factors and after many years got U.S. EPA to approve them PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 as an element of our consumers product regulation. At the 2 moment, they apply to aerosol coatings only. We're 3 looking at applying them to other categories. And when we 4 model ozone exceedances, we do look at reactivity of VOC 5 in those analyses. But where it works in lieu of mass 6 reductions, we're certainly open to considering that kind 7 of a reformulation. 8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So even on the products that 9 we're talking about today, the companies are able to use 10 reactivity? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No, they're not. 12 Only for aerosol coatings. Where there is a large range 13 in reactivity in the kinds of VOCs that are being used for 14 coatings. As Carla mentioned earlier this morning, a lot 15 of these products are already relatively low reactivity. 16 But in the meteorology of the South Coast air basin where 17 we have multi-day ozone episodes, even low reactivity 18 products will react eventually to form ozone. So we still 19 need regulations at the lower end. But when we did 20 aerosol coatings, we had high reactivity components we 21 were able to phase out with MIRs. 22 STATIONARY SOURCE ASSISTANT CHIEF BARHAM: Just 23 to add a little bit to that, too. One of the things we're 24 going to be looking at when we bring additional consumer 25 products categories back to the Board later next year will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 be reactivity for one of the categories, and it's hair 2 spray. We're currently working with the hair spray 3 manufacturers, helping them to understand reactivity 4 concepts, perhaps doing some research, and developing MIR 5 value, reactivity values for specific compounds used in 6 those products to see if there might be an option there 7 for reactivity to be used in consumer products. 8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 10 Ms. Porter. And then we will have Chip Brewer 11 and Patrice Sutton. 12 MS. PORTER: Hello. My name is Catherine Porter, 13 and I'm with Worksafe, which is a nonprofit organization 14 that advocates for worker health and safety and non-toxic 15 workplaces. 16 We're here supporting the staff's original 17 recommendation for a VOC limit of 10 percent that would be 18 implemented in at least 2008. And we'd actually prefer an 19 earlier implementation. And I've heard many times -- in 20 fact, most manufacturers representatives that have gotten 21 up here have said something about this standard is 22 challenging to them. And I'd like to question whether 23 there's anything in the regulation that says that whether 24 a standard is challenging should be the basis of a 25 regulatory decision. My understanding is it has to do PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 with technical feasibility, which there's been a lot of 2 evidence today here talking about that, in fact, a VOC 3 limit 10 percent in these products, automobile aerosol 4 cleaning products is in fact possible now. 5 I'd also like to raise the issue of the challenge 6 to health, the challenge to environment, and the huge 7 costs that our system bears when workers are sick, when 8 community members are sick, the costs our health systems 9 bear, the costs our government systems bear when people 10 are sick or when the environment is sick. 11 I'd also like to question industry. Several said 12 they have been losing market share on their product. And 13 I would be interesting in knowing what kind of research 14 and development they've done then to start trying to come 15 up with a product that does have low VOC limit and still 16 be effective. Instead of my concern is they're waiting 17 and hoping they won't have to reach that VOC limit and so 18 they won't have to do research and development to find a 19 low VOC product. 20 I'm also wondering what sort of input staff 21 received from health organizations, worker organizations, 22 environmental organizations on these VOC limits. I've 23 heard lots of manufacturers talk about how they're 24 greatful for staff working so closely with them, for 25 taking all their phone calls. I think there needs to be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 an effort made to make sure that the whole panoply of 2 interests are included during this regulatory process. 3 Maybe I'm missing out on information that in fact they 4 have connected with a lot of organizations and have gotten 5 input on this issue. 6 So finally, another question I have is there was 7 mention of an 18 month I believe -- maybe I'm not 8 remembering it correctly. Eighteen months before the 9 implementation deadline there would be a check-in with 10 industry. And I'm wondering what the purpose of that 11 check-in is. And my concern is the purpose will end up 12 being listening to the continued challenges of the 13 manufacturers in coming up with a low VOC limit and the 14 deadline would be extended even further. 15 So again, we support the 10 percent VOC limit on 16 auto aerosol cleaning products, and that should be 17 implemented the sooner the better. 2007 for us would be 18 preferable, but at least 2008. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 20 Mr. Brewer. 21 MR. BREWER: Mr. Chairman and Board members, my 22 name is Chip Brewer. I'm Director of Worldwide Government 23 Relations for the S.C. Johnson Company. S.C. Johnson is 24 located in Racine, Wisconsin, but I am here today also 25 speaking on behalf of the men and women who work at our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 manufacturing facility in Fresno. 2 S.C. Johnson is a global manufacturer of 3 household products. Some of our brand names include 4 Windex, Pledge, Raid, and Off insect control products, 5 Scrubbing Bubbles cleaners, Edge and Skintimate shave 6 gels. A common thread here is that not only are these 7 products made by S.C. Johnson, but is regulated under VOC 8 limits that have been adopted by the ARB. 9 I speak today for three reasons. First, I want 10 to commend the staff as others for their efforts in this 11 CONS-II rulemaking. This staff is tough, but this staff 12 is fair. The staff I think understands the statutory 13 requirements of the California Clean Air Act that they 14 have to achieve the maximum achievable emissions 15 reductions, but do it in ways that are commercially and 16 technically feasible. And the word commercially feasible 17 is in the statute. And I think it's not often easy to 18 balance these two requirements or several requirements. 19 But I think the staff tries to do that in a very fair and 20 a very transparent way. 21 Second, I want to echo what's been said 22 earlier -- oh, and incidentally in terms of that, in terms 23 of this particulate rulemaking and the process, S.C. 24 Johnson supports the VOC limit that's being proposed for 25 the air sanitizer category. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 Second, I want to echo what's been said about the 2 disinfectant sanitizer definition. There is a true 3 problem here, compliance problem that will be created if 4 this is not remedied. I think David Mallory earlier in 5 his description of the problem in response to a question 6 from the Board, he nailed it. And I think we've got to 7 fix it, and I was happy to hear a commitment by staff to 8 do that. 9 Third, I know I just have a limited amount of 10 time, but I wanted to speak off the subject of CONS-II for 11 a moment. You are currently in a process to revise your 12 SIP, and you will be adopting amendments next year. I 13 just want to urge some necessary caution that when you put 14 limits -- VOC mass reduction limits in the SIP that you do 15 so recognizing that a lot of the low-hanging fruit if you 16 will has already been picked in terms of VOC reductions. 17 We've already attacked the major categories, achieved 18 major reductions. That's been a credit both to your 19 regulatory regime and the R&D efforts of industry, but 20 we've got to be very cautious about what we can do in 21 terms of VOC mass reductions for some of these categories 22 in the future. 23 And if I could just one last moment. Dr. Sawyer, 24 you mentioned earlier reactivity as being maybe a 25 promising area. You should be aware that industry has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 proposed an early draft of an innovative product exemption 2 that would involve using reactivity in changing materials 3 based on the reactivity as a way to not necessarily 4 decrease the mass VOC of a product, but to increase the 5 actual ozone forming impact of such products. And we're 6 hoping that we can continue discussions with staff about 7 that. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 9 Ms. Sutton, excuse me. 10 MS. SUTTON: Thank you for the opportunity to 11 speak to you today. My name is Patrice Sutton, and I've 12 worked in public health for two decades doing 13 environmental and occupational health research. And I'm 14 here today speaking for myself. 15 And I came today because I've worked for the last 16 few decades with communities and workers who have been 17 impacted by toxic substances and the environment that they 18 either work in or in their communities. And I am here 19 because you have such an important opportunity to do 20 something for public health. So I wanted to strongly urge 21 you to support the original recommendation to reduce the 22 VOC content in automotive repair to below 10 percent in 23 2008 or sooner, as Catherine Porter had just mentioned. I 24 strongly oppose extending the deadline and increasing the 25 limits. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 And I just wanted to refocus the direction of 2 this meeting in terms of a group of end users who have not 3 been well represented. That's actually the communities 4 and the workers who are exposed to the toxic substances 5 that is really the subject of this discussion, people who 6 are harmed by these products. And while you can 7 measure -- the thing that you have the ability to do is 8 VOCs can be measured in the environment. But we have very 9 limited ability to actually measure health impacts to 10 workers and communities from these substances. So you 11 have an opportunity to make a strong regulation that will 12 actually improve public health. 13 One of the things that has been brought up is the 14 fungibility of acetone. I just want to mention that it is 15 true, but this is a very controllable hazard. And this is 16 a much, much, much safer from the standpoint of public 17 health alternative than what is currently used in terms of 18 these toxic materials. Acetone doesn't cause cancer, and 19 it doesn't cause chronic health effects. And although 20 there was talk about things that are easy to get the job 21 done, I have no doubt that it is much easier to use 22 methylene chloride and benzene for many uses, but maybe 23 that's not the whole point. Maybe in fact we don't really 24 want to make something so easy for a person to be exposed 25 to that they can harm themselves. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 I wanted to just reiterate that there are 2 solutions that are available. There's been ample 3 testimony to that effect. They're in use. The reductions 4 have been achieved. So I would ask why would we not 5 duplicate the success of the South Coast Air Quality 6 District here? I would wonder what we would tell the 7 families and workers who have been harmed by these 8 products for not taking the action as soon as possible for 9 things that are totally achievable now. The government 10 can actually be responsive to their needs right now and 11 particularly in terms of automotive repair products. 12 I just wanted to say that hazardous work can be 13 made less hazardous, and your making the automotive repair 14 VOC content below 10 percent by 2008 or sooner can 15 actually make a hazardous job safer for the people who are 16 exposed. 17 So I urge you to support the original proposal. 18 You have the capacity to improve public health, and I urge 19 you to take it. Thank you so much. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 21 That concludes the public testimony. 22 Ms. Witherspoon, does staff have further comments? 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Only in response to 24 questions from the Board. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I will now close the record PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 on this agenda item. However, the record will be reopened 2 when the 15-day Notice of Public Availability is issued. 3 Written or oral comments received after this hearing date 4 but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be 5 accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 6 item. When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 7 period, the public may submit written comments on the 8 proposed changes which will be considered and responded to 9 in the Final Statement of Reasons for the regulation. 10 I would take our usual ex parte report at this 11 time. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yes. I had a phone 13 conversation on November the 9th with Doug Raymond, 14 consultant with Raymond Regulatory Resources, and Harry 15 Zechman with Stoner, Incorporated. And our conversation 16 mirrored the testimony heard today. 17 I had a brief side bar comment with Doug Raymond 18 this morning, and the comment also mirrored the testimony 19 that we heard today. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 21 Dr. Gong. 22 BOARD MEMBER GONG: No. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I too spoke with Doug 25 Raymond, consultant of Raymond Regulatory Resources, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 Harry Zechman with Stoner, Incorporated, telephone call on 2 November 3rd. And their comments were consistent with the 3 comments that they raised today. 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: None. 5 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: None. 6 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just a conversation with 7 Lee Lockie during break. It was more or less consistent 8 with what was presented to this Board. 9 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: None. 10 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: None. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 12 We have a Resolution before us. And we need to 13 decide what to do about it. Is there any further 14 discussion or -- 15 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Let me make three points 16 and then a question if staff could react to it as a 17 possible amendment to the Resolution. 18 First point is in the South Coast we're working 19 on the update of the AQMP and realizing really how 20 difficult it is to search for tonnage. I think Chip 21 Brewer mentioned low hanging fruit. We're now long since 22 past the low hanging fruit. We're looking for anything we 23 can identify. And I think you recognize the kind of pain 24 that particularly stationary sources have had to accept. 25 Second point is that in a column by George Will PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 which I thought was particularly persuasive to me that he 2 was talking about actions in the South Coast. And he 3 pointed out in the column talked about 16 million people. 4 We now have 18 million people. But his point was will 18 5 million people do anything that has real consequences. 6 And the 18 million people now in southern California get 7 around by cars. There's probably over 20 million cars I 8 guess, not to mention other kind of vehicles in the south 9 coast basin. So when we do things with our cars, there's 10 a lot of people doing things. 11 The third is I think there is a role for 12 technology forcing. For many years, you hear we need more 13 study, we need more time. And I think the regulatory 14 boards' roles are to try to encourage technology forcing. 15 And so that's really a question I would like to ask staff 16 as a proposed amendment is that we rather than look for 17 2012 as the time where 10 percent, if we advance the time 18 to 2010 as opposed to 2012, if staff can respond to that 19 possible change. And again, it seems to me we do have an 20 interest in technology forcing. It's a compromise from 21 what the staff originally proposed to what is currently 22 being proposed. 23 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We can't say 24 for sure that that would solve all the industry problems. 25 Clearly, it would give them enough time to reformulate and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 get the emission reductions sooner. It would probably 2 raise the chance that some of them would not be 3 successful. And they would probably say that that lowers 4 the chances of them getting there in time. 5 We did not have the kind of detail plans from 6 them to say it needs to be 2012. They convinced us based 7 on the number of products and the massive job that was 8 facing them. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just another 10 comment. If we retained the 18-month technology review 11 ahead of 2010, we would be bringing that before the Board 12 six months after they had complied with 20 percent limit. 13 And some might be forced to just leapfrog, because there 14 wouldn't be a lot of time. That could happen. And 15 alternatively, they might not have done enough of the R&D 16 for the second phase to give us a clear answer. But just 17 one of other ways of looking at it. You can do technology 18 reviews. And since that's part of our general regulatory 19 process, I mean, it allows you to push it back out if you 20 need to. 21 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Chair, I just hold out 22 the possibility of using 2010 rather than 2012. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Is that a formal proposal 24 that we change it to 2010 or -- 25 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Yes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do other Boards members have 2 comments? 3 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Chairman Sawyer, I don't 4 think the Resolution has been moved and seconded. So that 5 would be a good first step. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Do I have a motion to 7 adopt the Resolution as presented? 8 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: I'd move that. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor indicate 11 by saying aye. 12 (Ayes) 13 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Point of clarification. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We have an amendment 15 proposed to this that the date be changed from 2012 to 16 2010. And we'll now discuss the amendment. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, having 18 seated myself here during a consumer product review 19 sometime back, I want to be successful. It is I think 20 very discouraging for us to have then a review and a time 21 when industry has to come before us and say again that 22 they couldn't meet the date. 23 I think the staff -- and I believe our staff is 24 very conservative -- have made a recommendation that is in 25 their judgment a reasonable one to find that most of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 companies that participate in these consumer products can 2 be successful. And I think that's very important. 3 Sometimes -- and I can think of one very specific 4 product in the past that we regulated simply couldn't meet 5 the standards that we set. And they literally left 6 California. I hate to see that occur. 7 I would like to think that we can have a program 8 that protects the public's health and at the same time 9 allows for the products and the economic viability of 10 those products to continue in California. So knowing the 11 staff and knowing that they're rather conservative, I'm 12 going to be very supportive of their amendments to the 13 proposal that we have before us. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I realize that I made a 15 procedural error and we don't have a second to the 16 proposed amendment. Is there a second? 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: To the staff amendment? 18 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: To the proposed 19 amendment to the staff proposal. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: To Mayor Loveridge's 21 proposal. Do we have a second? 22 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'd like to second it so 23 we can have further discussion. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Fine. Thank you very 25 much. Excuse me. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 2 You know, I think we've always had these sort of 3 two competing interests of maybe we can't do it as quick 4 as you would like versus why don't you do it overnight. 5 And virtually, we've had this discussion on every issue. 6 I think we've enjoyed the success that we have in 7 the many years I've been on this Board because we've tried 8 to work with the industry. You know, it's one thing to 9 say we'd like to waive a magic wand and we'd like all 10 pollution -- we should just outlaw it today. There 11 shouldn't be any pollution. We know that. But the fact 12 of the matter is it takes times to bring these things to 13 market to develop them. 14 I think what staff came in here was a reasonable 15 proposal, and that proposal was that in 2008 you would 16 have 70 percent of the benefits. 70 percent of the 17 benefit. And then we would carve out and give some time 18 to develop those products over the next four years. 19 That's not an unreasonable request in any way, shape, or 20 form. And what I'm hopeful for is within that time frame 21 we'll know what we get those reports 18 months out how 22 we're doing that. And no one can say with certainty that 23 that's going to work or that we're not going to have other 24 complications. So I think what the staff has given us is 25 a very good proposal. I think it's in keeping with all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 the basic tenant and why we've made and continue to make 2 progress. And I'm going to support that and not support 3 the amendment. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I would like to see on the 6 industry review that that would take place in 2010; is 7 that correct, the industry review? So sooner in 2010 than 8 later. 9 And secondly, I hope that we would really spend 10 some time in South Coast where you would have another 11 two years to really get your statistical information and 12 those shops that are using these products, and we could 13 get those facts verified and actually before this group. 14 And that we would make concerted effort to push industry 15 into moving forward and come back to us in 2010 with maybe 16 some good news that this has moved along faster than we 17 thought it would. 18 So putting industry on notice that, yes, the 19 first step-down in two years is great, and then don't let 20 up. And if you can deliver those savings before or the 21 additional step down before the next four years, that that 22 would be the goal. And therefore I would support the 23 staff recommendation. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Just a comment on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 Ms. Berg's request for the review in 2010. With the 2012 2 deadline as staff proposed for the 10 percent compliance, 3 the review happens -- and that's end of 2012. The review 4 at 18 months ahead is the middle of 2011. And so are you 5 asking for another review in 2010 which we could be -- 6 staff would be pleased to do about our progress after the 7 first milestone in '08. We would break the review before 8 2012 into two technology reviews. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I think that what I'm asking 10 for is that we need to keep the pressure and we need to 11 solicit industries' priority in this area. And so I am a 12 little hesitant that -- I know it's a lot of products. I 13 know how difficult formulation can be. I also know that 14 the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so to speak. And so I 15 think we really want to keep the focus. And so that's 16 what I'm asking. 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Okay. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 19 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Well, I think everyone has 20 given a very nice presentation of their viewpoints. I 21 compliment both the staff and also the witnesses on both 22 sides of this issue. 23 I think rather than get into a long dialogue, I 24 just think that public health is of great importance to me 25 for obvious reasons. And I think that technology-forcing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 regulations probably are the way to go. And I understand 2 that there are many "challenges," including burnishing. 3 But you know, I think I would support Mayor Loveridge's 4 statement and amendment again for the protection of public 5 health. The faster we protect public health, the more we 6 do for public health. And I think that's for me very 7 important and trumps many of the issues. Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I would agree with 10 Ms. Berg about the technology review and using that as an 11 opportunity to move the industry along. But I think that 12 if we keep the date of 2012, I think industry is going to 13 view that as an opportunity to come in through a review 14 and say, well, we can't make 2012. So I'd rather utilize 15 an earlier technology review with an earlier date, 16 recognizing that we need to be responsible about this. 17 I support Mayor Loveridge, but at the same time I 18 want to be responsible. And you all have worked on this 19 so much longer than we have at the Board level. I favor 20 an earlier date, but I think we need to have some other 21 alternative by way of the technology review in order to do 22 the right thing. Because as Ms. Riordan indicated, we've 23 got to do this right. We don't want to see companies 24 leaving California's marketplace. 25 So the question that I have of staff is if we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 have a technology review and an earlier date, what would 2 be a way to utilize them in a way they complement each 3 other? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, I just 5 realized I misspoke earlier. If we moved it to 2010, it 6 would be the end of 2010. And so the technology review 7 would be in the middle of '09. And that's probably a good 8 point at which to review the industry's progress. And the 9 prior 20 percent standard would take effect at the end of 10 '08. So it's a good balance point. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: But -- no. I'm wondering 12 where a technology review would fit in with Mayor 13 Loveridge's earlier -- 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Middle of '09. 15 Because he's proposing end of '08 -- 2010, excuse me. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So Mayor Loveridge, would 17 you be willing to accept an addition to your amendment 18 that we have a technology review the end of -- what did 19 you say? The end of '09. Middle of '09. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Eighteen months 21 ahead of the deadline as proposed to the amendment by 22 Mayor Loveridge. 23 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Sure. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other comments 25 from Board members? Are we ready to -- I assume then PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 we're ready to vote on the amendment on -- 2 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I have a question, and I 3 want to make sure I'm understanding Ms. Witherspoon. So 4 you feel that this accelerated -- you believe this 5 proposal on an accelerated review and end date is feasible 6 from a staff standpoint? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: At this moment in 8 time, we believe the industry is going to need the full 9 amount of time we proposed to the end of 2012 to reach the 10 10 percent limit. But we can evaluate that in the middle 11 of '09 and see whether a faster schedule is feasible as 12 Mayor Loveridge is proposing or in our original proposal. 13 It would take a rule amendment to put 2012 back if they 14 still need that time. And you would be adopting 2010 15 under Mayor Loveridge's proposal in the mean time. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. So the technology 17 review would sort of come automatically 18 months before 18 the deadline no matter what the deadline is. 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I think it's 20 our opinion that it's more likely that we'd be proposing a 21 rule change. But if it turns out it can be done faster, 22 then you get the benefits faster. It's how do you want to 23 go about getting the benefits. Everyone agrees that we 24 need to get there and we need to get to the lower level. 25 What's the best route to get there and what's the fairest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 route for industry and the best health protective route 2 for the citizens. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor Patrick. 4 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 5 I just have a very quick question. And that is 6 as industry is moving to the 20 percent threshold, what is 7 the likelihood that knowing that there's a 10 percent 8 threshold out there in a relatively short period of time 9 that they're going to skip past the 20 percent to the 10 10 percent? 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I don't think 12 that's too likely, because the 20 percent is -- you're 13 just lowering the content of the stuff that's there now. 14 You're not reformulating. 15 And I think part of the industry, when we put out 16 the original proposal, was basically saying we can't go 17 there and was proposing a very modest reduction as 18 something they could do. And the additional time to 2012 19 was tied to their commitment to do a very substantial 20 reduction in the first year-and-a-half, which will take 21 effort. And they'll have to devote effort to this. They 22 will probably -- in order to get that early reduction, 23 their resources are limited. They won't be able to start 24 the effort to get to the final limit as soon as -- you 25 know, immediately after the rule's adopted. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Thank you. 2 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: So they have 3 to invest in two changes, and we get a 70 percent benefit 4 early on. So we thought that was a fair way of going 5 ahead. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Is this a fair time to bring 8 up one other issue? I just have a question of staff. Are 9 we done with the automotive side? I don't want to break 10 the thought. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please go ahead. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just want to understand the 13 15-day change for the rubber and vinyl and where this 14 change or if there's any more discussion in regards to the 15 coatings product versus the lubricants products on the 16 rubber and vinyl. The rubber and vinyl change, my 17 understanding, there's a 15-day change that is being 18 proposed to look at additional clarifications in the 19 definition. 20 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The staff 21 proposal is to make sure that the rule includes and covers 22 tire coatings or tire products but does not cover other 23 aerosol coatings that are used for other purposes. And so 24 we have to make sure that the definition is written 25 properly to do that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Since we have included the 2 tire coating before under the aerosol rule, is there any 3 additional conversation that needs to be had to allow them 4 to reformulate since this rule goes into effect two years 5 and they have to reformulate from 67 percent down to 10 6 percent? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Staff believes we 8 never included tires in the aerosol coatings, and that was 9 a misinterpretation of the 1997 rule by certain 10 manufacturers. And so what our staff proposal did is 11 close that loophole and said you weren't supposed to be 12 doing that all of this time. And then when we wrote the 13 language to close the loophole, we got supplemental 14 comments that now we created some other issues that we 15 needed to avoid. But no, we are not offering extra time 16 on that reformulation other than the effective date of 17 this closed loophole. 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And I 19 don't -- it's not the same issue in the tire area. There 20 are many, many complying products. And the formulas are 21 known. So I think industry does not anticipate being able 22 to reformulate. It looks more like an aerosol coating 23 down to the lower limit other products will substitute and 24 do the function. 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. 2 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: One final comment. 3 There's a huge deficit when we look at the AQMP 4 for southern California. The look is not to the basin not 5 to the South Coast district, it's look the CARB and EPA 6 for reduction. And I think that's part of what is being 7 the judgment we're making today. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. We need to first vote 9 on the amendment to change the deadline for the 10 percent 10 limit from 2012 to 2010. 11 And I would ask the Clerk to call the role. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Can we agree that includes a 13 technology review? 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: That we will then hear that 16 technology review and either confirm the date or decide 17 when the next appropriate date would be? 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: That's correct. 19 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Although to just make it 20 clear, in other words, in order to change the date, we 21 would have to go through a whole rule making. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would the Clerk, please call 23 the role. 24 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes. 3 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 4 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes. 5 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 6 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Yes. 7 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge? 8 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Yes. 9 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Patrick? 10 BOARD MEMBER PATRICK: Yes. 11 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan? 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: No. 13 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 14 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: No. 15 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Dr. Sawyer? 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 17 SECRETARY ANDREONI: The motion passes. We have 18 seven yeses and two nos. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 20 Are we prepared to vote on the main motion as 21 amended at this time? All those in favor please indicate 22 by saying aye. 23 (Ayes) 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 25 Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 Following our usual procedures, we now have 2 opportunity for members of the Board to provide comments 3 on any items that they would desire to do so. Are there 4 any requests for Board comments? Are there any requests 5 for Board comments? And are there any requests for 6 comments from members of the public at this time? 7 If not, our meeting is adjourned. Thank you all 8 very much. 9 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 10 adjourned at 12:00 p.m.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 9 typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 30th day of November, 2006. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345