62004 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, 

EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). 

3. Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. CARB’s Suggested Control Measure 

(SCM) titled, ‘‘Suggested Control 

Measure for Automotive Coatings.’’ 

October 20, 2005. 

5. Control Techniques Guideline 

(CTG) for ‘‘Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesives’’, EPA–453/R–08–005, 

September 2008. 

6. CARB’s RACT/Best Available 

Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) 

guidance titled, ‘‘Determination of 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology and Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology for Adhesives and 

Sealants,’’ December 1998. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

relaxations. The TSDs have more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that do not affect EPA’s 

current action but are recommended for 

the next time the local agency modifies 

the rules. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rules fulfill all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve them 

as described in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act. We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, these rules do not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compound. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 28, 2011. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25879 Filed 10–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0800; FRL–9476–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, California Air 

Resources Board—Consumer 

Products 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the California Air Resources 

Board portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

consumer products. We are approving a 

local rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

November 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0800, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62005 

1Robert D, Fletcher (CARB), letter to Jared 

Blumenfeld (EPA Region IX), January 28, 2011, 

submitting the August 6, 2010 amendments to 

California’s Consumer Products Regulation. 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that it was 

adopted by the State and submitted by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Regulation Regulation title Amended Submitted 

California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5—Consumer Products.Article 2—Consumer Products ........ 08/06/10 01/28/11 

On July 28, 2011, the submittal for 

California Code of Regulations, Title 17, 

Division 3, chapter 1, subchapter 8.5— 

Consumer Products was deemed by 

operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Article 2 of CARB’s Consumer Products 

regulation into the SIP on May 12, 2011 

(76 FR 27613). CARB adopted revisions 

to the SIP-approved version on August 

6, 2010 and submitted them to us on 

January 28, 2011. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. 

The California Health and Safety Code 

(Section 41712(b)) requires CARB to 

adopt regulations to achieve the 

maximum feasible reduction in volatile 

organic compounds emitted by 

consumer products if the state board 

determines that adequate data exist to 

establish both of the following: 

(1) The regulations are necessary to 

attain state and federal ambient air 

quality standards. 

(2) The regulations are commercially 

and technologically feasible and 

necessary. 

CARB’s current amendments to their 

consumer products regulations 

establishes lower VOC limits for Double 

Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners and 

establishes new limits for Multi-purpose 

Solvents and Paint Thinners. Multipurpose Solvents and Paint Thinners 

are subject to a two tier limit. The first 

tier establishes a 30 weight percent limit 

effective December 31, 2010. The 

second tier is not included in the 

submitted SIP revision.1

The amendments also: (1) Add new 

definitions for: Aromatic compound, 

artists solvent/thinner, high temperature 

coating, industrial maintenance coating, 

and zinc-rich primer; (2) modify the 

definitions for ASTM, Multi-purpose 

Solvent, Paint Thinner, and Automotive 

windshield washer fluid—diluted and 

premixed; (3) prohibit the use of the 

toxic air contaminants methylene 

chloride, perchloroethylene, or 

trichloroethylene in Multi-purpose 

Solvents and Paint Thinners; (4) 

prohibit the use of compounds with a 

global warming potential (GWP) of 150 

or greater in Multi-purpose Solvents and 

Paint Thinners; (5) temporarily 

prohibits flammable or extremely 

flammable products from using generic 

product names such as ‘‘Multi-purpose 

Solvent’’, ‘‘Paint Thinner’’, or ‘‘Paint 

Clean-up’’; (6) prohibit the sale or 

manufacture for use in California Multipurpose Solvents and Paint Thinners 

containing greater than one percent by 

weight of ‘‘aromatic compounds’’; and 

(7) require responsible parties to report 

to CARB specific progress towards 

meeting the second tier limits for Multipurpose Solvents and Paint Thinners by 

June 30, 2012. 

Generally, CARB received support for 

their amendments from both industry 

and environmental organizations, 

although there were comments from 

industry about the technological 

challenges posed by limits on the 

aromatic compound content of Multipurpose Solvents and Paint Thinners. In 

response to these comments, CARB 

noted in its Final Statement of Reasons 

for Rulemaking that there is a potential 

for adverse ozone impact if significant 

amounts of aromatic compounds are 

used in reformulated products. 

CARB estimates these amendments 

will achieve 8.4 tons per day (tpd) of 

VOC reductions Statewide in 2010 and 

10.4 tpd in 2012. These values do not 

include emissions or reductions from 

the Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint 

Thinners categories in the South Coast 

Air Basin because South Coast adopted 

its own rule for Multi-purpose Solvents 

and Paint Thinners prior to CARB’s 

action. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that 

regulations submitted to EPA for 

approval into a SIP must be clear and 

legally enforceable. CAA section 110(l) 

prohibits EPA from approving any SIP 

revision that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. California’s 

consumer products regulation covers 

VOC area sources and not stationary 

sources. In 1998 EPA promulgated a 

national rule to regulate VOC emissions 

from consumer products (63 FR 48831, 

September 11, 1998). EPA’s national 

rule largely parallels CARB’s earlier SIPapproved consumer products rule. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62006 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2Proposed Amendments to the California 

Consumer Products Regulations Initial Statement of 

Reasons. Release Date: August 7, 2009. IV–30. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/ 

cpmthdisor.pdf. 

3 Ibid. IV–21. 

amendment from CARB that we are 

proposing to approve today contains a 

more stringent limit for Double Phase 

Aerosol Air Fresheners than EPA’s 1998 

national rule and also covers two new 

consumer product categories, Multipurpose Solvents and Paint Thinners. 

CARB points out that although 

emissions from individual consumer 

products may not seem large, 

collectively, they represent a significant 

source of emissions when taking into 

account 38 million California residents 

use these products and that given the 

severity of air pollution in California, 

‘‘dramatic emission reductions from all 

sources contributing to ground-level 

ozone are necessary’’.2 CARB estimates 

that ozone pollution damage to crops is 

estimated to cost agriculture over $500 

million dollars annually.3

Rules, guidance and policy 

documents that we use to evaluate 

enforceability and SIP revisions include 

the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ 

EPA, May 25, 1988, revised January 11, 2000 

(the Bluebook). 

2. State Implementation Plans, General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 

FR 13498; April 16, 1992). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ 

EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little 

Bluebook). 

4. 40 CFR 59 subpart C, National Volatile 

Organic Compound Emission Standards for 

Consumer Products. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant requirements and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

revisions. CARB’s Consumer Products 

regulation contains more stringent 

limits and covers more than twice the 

number of categories covered by EPA’s 

national Consumer Products rule. As 

requested by CARB, our proposed action 

does not cover the second tier VOC 

emission limits for Multi-purpose 

Solvents and Paint Thinners. The TSD 

has more information on our evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it 

under section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal for the next 30 days. 

Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 28, 2011. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25886 Filed 10–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1222] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifications for the communities 

listed in the table below. The purpose 

of this proposed rule is to seek general 

information and comment regarding the 

proposed regulatory flood elevations for 

the reach described by the downstream 

and upstream locations in the table 

below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are 

a part of the floodplain management 

measures that the community is 

required either to adopt or to show 

evidence of having in effect in order to 

qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before January 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community is available for inspection at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS