Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0800-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan: California Air Resources Board, Consumer Products
Posted Date: 2011-10-06T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62004-62006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25886]

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

 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 e-mail 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

[[Page 62005]]

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,       Article 2--Consumer Products....        08/06/10        01/28/11
 Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--
 Consumer Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Multi-purpose 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 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 Multi-purpose 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 Multi-
purpose 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 Multi-purpose 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 SIP-approved consumer products rule. The

[[Page 62006]]

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, 
Multi-purpose 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Proposed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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