CARB Urged By Industry To Postpone November Board Hearing

The California Air Resources Board should postpone its Nov. 16 board hearing in order to give industries time to better prepare for volatile organic compound emissions regulations, according to the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association.

The meeting, during which CARB staff will present to the board a finalized list of categories subject to VOC regulation, should be pushed back to January, CTFA Consultant and former Exec VP-Legal and General Counsel Tom Donegan suggested during CARB's July 25 Consumer Products Regulation Workgroup Meeting.

"We're talking about very fundamental issues here that are going to go to how you put this regulatory proposal together and ultimately present it to the board, and I would strongly recommend if we can somehow get an additional two months to work out those issues, everyone will be better off for it," he said.

Currently, CARB plans to hold its first public workshop in late August or early September before releasing a 45-day notice of its proposed rule Sept. 29 and prior to the board meeting.

However, CTFA maintains the time crunch creates a compromising situation for both industry and CARB.

"The fact is that now we're down to practically a month before you're going to have to figure out what the final emissions reduction figure is, and what the proponent parts are, and have that proposal prepared to go to your board, and I think we've got a lot more work to do," Donegan stated.

CARB Measures Development Section Manager David Mallory said the agency would consider CTFA's position.

Donegan's sentiments were made in light of CARB's continued efforts to refine its proposed list of products. On July 20, the agency presented its second staff proposal for category standards and proposed regulatory categories and definitions.

Among changes to the list, CARB lowered the proposed VOC standard for aftershave products to 30% for liquid and pump sprays and 1% for semisolid forms. The agency also separated aftershaves into their own category with the definition "includes but is not limited to aftershave colognes, lotions, balms, creams and gels."

In an initial draft list of VOC limits released May 25, aftershaves were grouped with personal fragrances; combined, the category had a VOC standard of 50%.

"Further analysis of this category indicates that lower standards than what was originally proposed as well as sub-categorization by product form is appropriate," Mallory said of the change.

Donegan urged CARB to return to the former category standard, asserting separating aftershaves from fragrances compromises the quality of the products. Aftershaves are subject to the same limitations as fragrances in that a reformulation essentially destroys the product, he maintained.

Further, the new category definition creates an "apples to oranges comparison," since the product forms listed under the category are different from one another and should be subject to different standards.

CARB also changed proposals to several categories, including hair spray. In its initial draft list in May, the agency proposed that in addition to an existing mass-based VOC limit, it would set a limit on the maximum incremental reactivity of VOCs in hair spray (¹ (Also see "VOC Reactivity Standards For Hair Spray Weighed During CARB Meeting" - HBW Insight, 5 Jun, 2006.), p. 7).

However, after discussing the issue with EPA, and "in light of the September 2005 interim guidance on controls of VOCs in the ozone state implementation plan, which encourages states to consider reactivity based control, we dropped the mass cap limit," CARB said. Therefore, hair spray has an MIR limit of 0.7%

Although Donegan commended the agency on dropping the dual standard, he noted CTFA does not support the MIR requirement, and will discuss the issue with the agency in more detail.

CARB also changed a proposal for nail coatings, similarly transforming it from a mass-based VOC limit to an MIR standard, which is more "appropriate" for the category and would provide more formula flexibility for manufacturers, Mallory said. The standard is presented in two tiers: tier one has an MIR standard of 0.5% and tier two has a limit of 0.2%.

The MIR limits for nail coatings could result in a removal of nail product ingredients toluene, formaldehyde and xylene, CARB noted, adding it will "continue to gather data, safety exposure and risk information" on those compounds to determine whether to limit or prohibit their use in the category.

CTFA opposed the change to MIR standards and questioned making the move so late in the process. Further, regarding the reassessment of the three nail care substances, Donegan noted it is "too late in the game to go back and wrestle with some of the toxic issues" of categories, and that the three ingredients have already been studied for safety at length.

Donegan also criticized the new definition for nail coatings, which states the products include but are not limited to "enamels, lacquers, combination topcoat polish drying products, ridge fillers, strengtheners, hardeners and conditioners." He suggested the products are too different to be grouped together.

Personal sanitizer standards also were discussed during the meeting. Although CARB has not changed its proposal for 1% VOC limit on the category, it is still reviewing comments on the products and consulting with the Department of Health Services and other health professionals.

Specifically, the agency had received comments from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that stressed the importance of alcohol-based sanitizers, since manufacturers that market such products could be required to lower the alcohol levels in formulas per CARB's VOC regs.

CTFA previously expressed concern that if CARB were to require that astringents be formulated with lower levels of alcohol than those required by the OTC monograph, there would be conflicting state and federal rules (² (Also see "CTFA Warns CARB On Listing Antimicrobials, Astringents In VOC Regs" - HBW Insight, 3 Apr, 2006.), p. 8).

The association stated it is pleased the agency was discussing the issue with various health authorities, and reiterated its view that alcohol-based sanitizers offer health benefits for consumers and that non-alcohol sanitizers are not always appropriate alternatives.

Non-alcohol sanitizers are not necessarily legally marketed, the association pointed out. "You can also not assume those products will continue to be made available once the monograph from FDA is published," CTFA said.

CARB's proposal did not change the agency's previous proposal for VOC standards for astringent/toner (10%), temporary hair color (aerosol) (55%) and personal fragrance products with 20% or less fragrance (75%).

- Eileen Francis