[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62346-62350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24492]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0529; FRL-9915-53-Region 9]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, California 
Air Resources Board--Consumer Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct 
final action to approve revisions to the California Air Resources Board 
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 
revisions concern

[[Page 62347]]

volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products. We 
are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under 
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 16, 2014 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 17, 2014. If 
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0529, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c1f18090f070900420d02081e091b2c091c0d420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85f6f1e0e6eee0e9abe4ebe1f7e0f2c5e0f5e4abe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 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 www.regulations.gov or email. 
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 email 
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. Electronic files should avoid the use of 
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects 
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. 
While all documents in the docket are listed at 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#681c07060f461b1c0906040d11280d1809460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec9883828bc29f988d82808995ac899c8dc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 we are approving with the date it was 
amended by the State and submitted by the California Air Resources 
Board (CARB).

                             Table 1--Submitted California Air Resources Board Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Filed with California
          Regulation                       Amended                 Secretary of State         Submitted to EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter 8.5--Consumer        March 15, 2013..............  April 25, 2013.............  May 28, 2014.
 Products; Article 2--Consumer
 Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for California 
Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--
Consumer Products; Article 2--Consumer Products met 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 CARB's Consumer Products 
Regulation (amended on August 6, 2010 and submitted to EPA on January 
28, 2011), into the SIP on February 13, 2012 (77 FR 7535). CARB's 
submittal letter advised EPA that its SIP submission did not include 
the second tier 3% VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint 
Thinners. CARB's intent was to monitor manufacturers' progress to meet 
both the technology forcing lower VOC limit and a less flammable 
product. In 2013 CARB determined the 3% VOC limit for Multi-purpose 
Solvents and Paint Thinners was technically feasible and included the 
limit in a May 28, 2014 SIP submittal.
    On September 29, 2011, and March 15, 2013 CARB adopted additional 
revisions to the SIP-approved version and submitted them to us along 
with the 3% VOC limit for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners on 
May 28, 2014. Table 2 lists the three amendments. While we can act on 
only the most recently amended version that was submitted to EPA, we 
have reviewed materials provided with the SIP submittal and note that 
it includes and builds on the previous amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Date the Final Rulemaking Package was filed with the 
California Office of Administrative Law.

         Table 2--California Air Resources Board Submitted Revisions to Its Consumer Products Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Filed with California
         Board hearing                    Amended \1\                 Secretary of State        Submitted to EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 24, 2009.............  August 6, 2010...............  September 20, 2010...........  May 28, 2014 (2nd
                                                                                                tier--3% VOC
                                                                                                limit for Multi-
                                                                                                purpose Solvents
                                                                                                and Paint
                                                                                                Thinners only).
November 18, 2010..............  September 29, 2011...........  November 10, 2011............  May 28, 2014.
October 18, 2012...............  March 15, 2013...............  April 25, 2013...............  May 28, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 62348]]

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 May 28, 2014 submittal contains the following three 
amendments to its Consumer Products Regulation: (1) The second tier 3% 
VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners from CARB's 
August 6, 2010 amendments (September 24, 2009 Board Hearing), but 
excluded from CARB's January 28, 2011 SIP submittal; \2\ (2) CARB's 
September 29, 2011 amendments (November 18, 2010 Board Hearing), which 
established new or lower VOC limits for 11 consumer product categories; 
and (3) CARB's March 15, 2013 amendments (October 18, 2012 Board 
Hearing), which incorporates additional areas where higher VOC 
automobile windshield washer fluid could be sold to accommodate 
mountainous areas that routinely experience freezing temperatures in 
the winter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Robert 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments also: (1) Add or modify the definitions for artist's 
solvent/thinner, oven cleaners, spot removers, and the ``Most 
Restrictive Limit'' provision; (2) consolidate existing requirements 
into a table listing the consumer product categories that prohibit the 
use of the toxic air contaminants methylene chloride, 
perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. This will make it easier to 
find the requirements for all consumer product categories where use of 
these compounds is prohibited; (3) consolidate into a table listing the 
consumer product categories that prohibit the use of compounds with a 
global warming potential (GWP) of 150 or greater; (4) consolidate into 
a table listing the consumer products that prohibit the use of para-
dichlorobenzene; (5) add additional test methods to be used to 
determine the aromatic content of Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint 
Thinners and the VOC content of Fabric Softener-Single Use Drying 
Product; (6) raise the VOC limit for nonaerosol Oven or Grill Cleaners 
products to 4% to accommodate the use of noncaustic technologies; (7) 
delay the effective date until December 31, 2012 for Spot Removers, and 
until December 31, 2013 for Flying Bug Insecticide (aerosol) and Wasp 
or Hornet Insecticide (aerosol); and (8) prohibit the use of 
alkylphenol ethoxylates in certain products to ensure these compounds 
are not used when reformulating the products.
    Generally, CARB received support for its amendments from both the 
consumer products industry and environmental organizations. Although 
industry commented about the serious and costly reformulation 
challenges posed by the amendments, industry was committed to expending 
the money to conduct the research and development necessary to meet the 
new requirements. Environmental organizations were also generally 
supportive of the proactive approach CARB was taking to prohibit the 
use of certain toxic compounds in order to help protect the health of 
workers and consumers, and prohibiting the use of compounds with high 
global warming potential in the reformulation of products to meet lower 
VOC limits.
    CARB estimates that raising the VOC limit for Oven or Grill 
Cleaners to 4% will result in an increase of approximately 0.1 tons per 
day (tpd) and that increasing the number of areas where higher VOC 
automotive windshield washer fluid could be sold will result in an 
increase of 0.12 tpd VOC. CARB's staff reports indicate these increases 
would be offset by approximately 11 tpd of VOC reductions from other 
consumer product categories. 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 an early 
SIP-approved version of CARB's consumer products regulation. The 
amendments from CARB that we are approving today regulate nearly three 
times the number of consumer product categories and has more stringent 
VOC limits than categories covered under EPA's 1998 national rule. 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 39 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''.\3\ CARB estimates 
that ozone pollution damage to crops is estimated to cost agriculture 
over $500 million dollars annually.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Initial Statement of Reasons; Proposed Amendments to the 
California Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products; 
Release Date: September 29, 2010. IV-25. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpmthdisor.pdf.
    \4\ Ibid. IV-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and SIP requirements consistently 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); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 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 policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. CARB estimates 
that raising the VOC limit for Oven or Grill Cleaners and increasing 
the mountainous areas where higher VOC windshield washer fluid can be 
sold will increase VOC emissions by approximately 0.1 and 0.12 tpd 
respectively, but that these increases are offset by VOC reductions 
(approximately 11 tpd) from other consumer product categories. We have

[[Page 62349]]

reviewed CARB's analysis and agree that the emission increases are 
offset by greater VOC reductions achieved in other consumer product 
categories and that it will not interfere with attainment, RFP, or any 
other applicable CAA requirement. Our TSD has more information on our 
evaluation.
    Our action is being taken under CAA Title 1 part D and is limited 
to the control of criteria pollutants. However, we support CARB's 
actions to limit toxic or potentially toxic compounds and those 
compounds with a high global warming potential.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this 
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we 
receive adverse comments by November 17, 2014, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on December 16, 2014. This will incorporate the 
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 rule 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 16, 2014. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final 
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel 
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed 
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an 
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so 
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in 
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 5, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(444) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (444) New and amended regulations were submitted on May 28, 2014, 
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) California Air Resource Board.
    (1) ``Final Regulation Order, Regulation for Reducing Emissions 
from Consumer Products,'' Subchapter 8.5 (Consumer Products), Article 2

[[Page 62350]]

(Consumer Products), amended March 15, 2013.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-24492 Filed 10-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>