Federal Register, Volume 61 Issue 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14531-14543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8005]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59

[AD-FRL-5451-7]
RIN 2060-AF62

National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Consumer Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed standards would reduce emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from certain categories of consumer products.
The proposed standards implement Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and are based on the Administrator's determination that VOC
emissions from the use of consumer products can cause or contribute to
ozone levels that violate the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ozone. Ozone is a major component of smog which causes
negative health and environmental impacts when present in high
concentrations at ground level. These proposed standards would reduce
VOC emissions by 90,000 tons per year, by requiring manufacturers,
importers, and distributors to limit the VOC content of consumer
products. The proposed requirements were developed in consultation with
major stakeholders and are largely consistent with a proposal by
representatives of the affected industry and are similar to existing
standards in certain States. To date, many companies have taken steps
to reformulate their products to emit less VOCs.
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide interested
persons an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or
arguments concerning the proposed standards for consumer products.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 3, 1996.
Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than May 2, 1996. If a hearing is held, it will take place
on May 17, 1996, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention: Docket No. A-95-40, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below.
The docket is located at the above address in Room M1500, Waterside
Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; telephone number (202) 260-7548, FAX (202) 260-
4400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the hearing will be held at
the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. Persons interested in presenting

[[Page 14532]]
testimony or attending the hearing should contact Ms. Kim Teal at (919)
541-5580.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements
will be available for public inspection and copying during normal
working hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket in Washington, DC
(see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed regulation, contact Mr. Bruce Moore at (919) 541-5460,
Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the Proposed Regulatory Text can
be obtained through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). The TTN is
one of the EPA electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The
service is free except for the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-
5472 for up to a 14,000 bps modem. Select (1) TTN Bulletin Board, (2)
Clean Air Act Amendments, and (3) Recently Signed Rules. If more
information on TTN is needed, contact the systems operator at (919)
541-5384.
Proposed Regulatory Text. The proposed regulatory text is not
included in this Federal Register notice, but is available in Docket
No. A-95-40, or by written or telephone request from the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSEES).
Technical Support Document. The Technical Support Document (TSD)
for the proposed standards may be obtained from the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSEES).
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA). The EIA for the proposed standards
may be obtained from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (see ADDRESSEES).
Preamble Outline. The information presented in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. Acronyms and Definitions
A. Acronyms
B. Definitions
II. Background
A. Need for Proposed Rule
B. Consumer Products Survey
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental and Health Impacts
B. Energy Impacts
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
D. Cost-Effectiveness
V. Rationale for Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Pollutant
B. Selection of Best Available Controls (BAC)
C. Selection of Special Provisions
D. Selection of the Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
E. Selection of Test Methods
F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
C. Unfunded Mandates
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

I. Acronyms and Definitions

The following acronyms and definitions are provided to aid in
reading the preamble.

A. Acronyms

ACMC=Automotive Chemical Manufacturers Council
ASC=Adhesive and Sealant Council
ASTM=American Society for Testing and Materials
BAC=best available control(s)
CAA=Clean Air Act
CARB=California Air Resources Board
CSMA=Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
CTFA=Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association
CTG=Control Techniques Guidelines
FIFRA=Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
HVOC=high volatility organic compound
NAA=National Aerosol Association
NAAQS=national ambient air quality standard
OMB=Office of Management and Budget
OMS=Office of Mobile Sources
RFA=Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA=regulatory impact analysis
SDA=Soap and Detergent Association
SIP=State implementation plan(s)
STAPPA/ALAPCO=State and Territorial Air Pollution Administrators/
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Offices
TCA=1,1,1-trichloroethane
VOC=volatile organic compound(s)

B. Definitions

Consumer or commercial products are defined in Section 183(e)(1) of
the CAA as:

Any substance, product (including paints, coatings, and
solvents), or article (including any container or packaging) held by
any person, the use, consumption, storage, disposal, destruction, or
decomposition of which may result in the release of volatile organic
compounds. The term does not include fuels or fuel additives
regulated under Section 211, or motor vehicles, non-road vehicles,
and non-road engines as defined under Section 216.

Consumer products are products used by individuals in a household
setting (e.g., around the home, workshop, garden, garage).
Commercial products are products used in a variety of commercial,
institutional, or industrial settings and include products similar in
nature to consumer products that may be used in various commercial,
institutional, or industrial applications.

II. Background

A. Need for Proposed Rule

Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and
ecosystems. The most thoroughly studied health effects of exposure to
ozone at elevated levels during periods of moderate to strenuous
exercise are the impairment of normal functioning of the lungs,
symptomatic effects, and reduction in the ability to engage in
activities that require various levels of physical exertion. Typical
symptoms associated with acute (one to three hour) exposure to ozone at
levels of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) or higher under heavy exercise
or 0.16 ppm or higher under moderate exercise include cough, chest
pain, nausea, shortness of breath, and throat irritation.
Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of ``smog,'' is
formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. In order to reduce ground-level
ozone levels, emissions of VOC and NOX must be reduced.
Section 183(e) of the CAA addresses VOC emissions from the use of
consumer and commercial products. It requires the EPA to study VOC
emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products, to report
to Congress the results of the study, and to list for regulation
products accounting for at least 80 percent of VOC emissions resulting
from the use of such products in ozone nonattainment areas.
Accordingly, in the March 23, 1995 Federal Register, (60 FR 15264) the
EPA announced the availability of the ``Consumer and Commercial
Products Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-94-066-A), and published the
consumer and commercial products list and schedule for regulation.
Volatile organic compound emissions from the use of consumer
products are not currently regulated at the Federal level. However,
four States (California, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas) are
currently enforcing VOC standards for various consumer products. Four
additional States (Oregon, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Connecticut)
have proposed VOC standards for consumer products, and other States are
currently developing standards. All of these State rules address at
least some of the

[[Page 14533]]
products covered by the EPA's proposed rule. Representatives of the
consumer products industry (e.g., CSMA, CTFA, SDA, NAA, ACMC, and ASC)
have expressed concern that differences in State and local requirements
for consumer products could disrupt the national distribution network
for consumer products. They have, therefore, urged the EPA to issue
rules for consumer products to encourage consistency across the
country. Many States with ozone pollution problems are also supportive
of an EPA rulemaking that will assist them in their efforts toward
achievement of ozone attainment. At least 13 States have included
anticipated reductions from the Federal consumer products rule as part
of their plans to reduce VOC emissions by 15 percent by November 1996.
In response to these concerns, the EPA listed for regulation the 24
categories of household consumer products addressed by the proposed
rule. The BAC standards proposed today establish VOC content limits for
these 24 consumer products. States, however, may promulgate their own
VOC standards for consumer products if they are at least as stringent
as Federal rules. In some cases, depending upon their strategy for
achieving attainment with the NAAQS for ozone, certain States may need
to promulgate additional, or more stringent standards.

B. Consumer Products Survey

In order to ensure that the required 80 percent of VOC emissions
from the use of consumer and commercial products are accounted for in
the list and schedule for regulation, the EPA developed a comprehensive
emissions inventory. A significant part of this inventory consists of
data collected in a survey of consumer products. The survey was
distributed to over 3,700 manufacturers and marketers of consumer
products. All of the product categories addressed in this proposed rule
were covered in the survey. The survey requested detailed information
about consumer products on a formulation-specific basis including
product category and form, total VOC and speciated VOC content, and net
weight sold in 1990. The EPA compiled the survey responses into a data
base that has provided, in part, the basis for development of these
proposed consumer products standards. In particular, the data base was
used to determine demonstrated VOC contents for each category, and to
estimate the potential emission reduction and cost- effectiveness
attributable to the proposed standards.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

The promulgated rule for the consumer and commercial products
scheduled for regulation under this proposal will be codified under 40
CFR Part 59. The proposed standards limit the VOC emissions from 24
categories of consumer products. These standards are largely consistent
with a proposal by the consumer products industry and are similar to
existing standards in certain States. The proposed standards apply to
manufacturers, importers, or distributors of subject consumer products
manufactured for sale or distribution in the United States. Compliance
with the proposed standards must be demonstrated by the manufacturer,
importer, or distributor listed on the product label. If more than one
company is identified on the label, the proposed standards apply to the
party for whom the product was manufactured or by whom the product was
distributed. With the exception of charcoal lighter fluid (see below),
the proposed product categories and their respective VOC content limits
are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The VOC content limits presented in
Tables 1 and 2 must be achieved by September 1, 1996. To identify
subject consumer products, the proposed rule requires that each
manufacturer or importer of a subject consumer product display on each
consumer product container or package, the day, month, and year on
which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating such date.
Charcoal lighter fluid manufactured after September 1, 1996 may not
emit greater than nine grams (0.02 pound) of VOC per start, as
determined using procedures specified in Section 59.208 of the proposed
rule.
Manufacturers or importers of subject charcoal lighter fluid must
label their products with information specifying the quantity of
charcoal lighter material per pound of charcoal that was used in the
testing protocol for that product.
Proposed exemptions from the above-mentioned VOC content limits (or
emission standards for charcoal lighters) include the following:
(1) Any consumer product manufactured in the United States for
shipment and use outside of the United States.
(2) Fragrances incorporated into a consumer product up to a
combined level of two weight-percent.
(3) Any VOC that has a vapor pressure of less than 0.1 millimeter
of mercury at 20 deg.C (68 deg.F). If the vapor pressure is unknown,
exempt compounds are those that have more than 12 carbon atoms or that
have a melting point higher than 20 deg.C (68 deg.F) and do not sublime
(i.e., do not change directly from a solid into a gas without melting).
(4) Insecticides containing at least 98 percent paradichlorobenzene
or at least 98 percent naphthalene.
(5) Adhesives sold in containers of 0.03 liter (one ounce) or less.
(6) Bait station insecticides. For the purpose of this section,
bait station insecticides are containers enclosing an insecticidal bait
that does not weigh more than 14 grams (0.03 pound), where bait is
designed to be ingested by insects and is composed of solid material
feeding stimulants with less than five percent active ingredients.
(7) Air fresheners whose VOC constituents are 100 percent fragrance
materials.
The proposed standards also include an innovative product provision
that allows a manufacturer to demonstrate that, due to some
characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery system, or
other factor, the use of the product will result in equal or less VOC
emissions than a complying consumer product subject to the same VOC
content limit as presented in Tables 1 and 2.
The proposed rule also allows a manufacturer or importer to apply
for a temporary variance if, for reasons beyond their reasonable
control, they cannot comply with the VOC content limit requirements.
Criteria that must be met before the Administrator will grant a
variance are specified in the proposed rule.
A manufacturer of a consumer product (except for charcoal lighter
fluid) subject to the proposed provisions would be required to
demonstrate compliance with the VOC content limits presented in Tables
1 and 2 by calculating the VOC content of each product from records of
the weight percent of constituents used to make each batch of the
product. A manufacturer of charcoal lighter fluid must demonstrate
compliance using procedures specified in Section 59.208 of the proposed
rule, or by another validated alternate method approved by the
Administrator.
Manufacturers, importers, and distributors must keep records of
formulations for each consumer product subject to Section 59.203(a) of
the proposed rule for purposes of demonstrating compliance.
Manufacturers would also be required to maintain accurate records for
three years for each batch of production of the weight-percent and
chemical composition of the individual product constituents.
Manufacturers of subject charcoal lighter fluids must keep

[[Page 14534]]
records for three years of the results of tests performed according to
Section 59.208 of the proposed rule.
The proposed standards require that manufacturers and importers of
any subject consumer product submit a one-time initial notification
report containing the following information: (1) Company name; (2)
Location of facility(ies) manufacturing, importing, or distributing
subject consumer products; (3) A list of product categories and
subcategories, as found in Tables 1 and 2, that are manufactured or
imported at each facility; (4) Location where VOC content records are
kept for each subject consumer product; (5) Description of date coding
systems; and (6) Name, title, and signature of certifying company
official. An updated description of any date code that may have been
revised subsequent to the initial notification report must be submitted
within 30 days of its first use.

IV. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental and Health Impacts

These standards will reduce nationwide emissions of VOC from these
consumer products by 82,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) [90,000 tons per
year (tpy)] by 1997 over emissions in 1990. This equates to a 20-
percent reduction, compared to the emissions that would have resulted
in the absence of these standards.
No adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts are
anticipated from compliance with these standards. In general, the
proposed standards will lead to product reformulation to reduce the
amount of VOC released into the air. While some additional water is
likely to be added to formulations, this increase is not expected to
result in additional water discharges to the environment.
The standards affect products manufactured after September 1, 1996,
but do not impact existing product inventories. Excluding existing
product inventories will eliminate any incremental solid waste increase
due to discarded product. The new products are not expected to require
any more packaging than existing products; thus, the volume of
discarded packaging should not increase.
Impacts to health will be positive since the proposed standards
will reduce national emissions of VOC by 82,000 Mg/yr (90,000 tpy).
These reductions will result in a decrease in ground level ozone,
particularly in ozone nonattainment areas.

B. Energy Impacts

There will be no increase in the national annual energy usage as a
result of this rule. The proposed standards do not require the use of
control devices to reduce the amount of VOC emitted to the air; the EPA
is also not aware of any incremental energy increase expected from the
production of the new formulations.

C. Cost Impacts

Under a worst-case scenario, implementation of these standards
would result in national annualized costs of $26.0 million per year
(presented in 1991 dollars). Actual costs are likely to be lower. This
estimate includes the annualized one-time costs of product
reformulation. Recordkeeping and reporting costs have been estimated to
be approximately $950,000. Therefore, the total annualized costs are
approximately $27.0 million. There are no monitoring requirements for
this rule. No significant capital expenditures are expected. The EPA
has determined, and the consumer products industry has concurred, that
a significant proportion of subject products have been reformulated in
response to State regulation. Data are not available to quantify the
proportion of the one-time reformulation costs that have already been
incurred.
By establishing a set of product-specific standards for VOC
content, the proposed regulations have cost implications for producers
of the affected products. In 1996, manufacturers of consumer products
that do not meet the VOC levels in the proposed Table of Standards,
will be required to reformulate products or remove products from the
market. Each option imposes costs, some of which will be passed on to
other members of society (consumers) in the form of higher prices and
some of which will be borne directly by manufacturers.
The cost of reformulation includes the resources that must be
devoted to creating a compliant product, e.g., research and development
expenditures plus any net changes in the variable cost of producing the
new product. Variable costs may be affected by changes in the material
composition of the new product. The cost for each noncompliant product
depends on the level of effort required to develop a new product and
how these expenditures are incurred over time. Reformulation cost data
were provided by industry to the EPA for prototype reformulations in
the consumer product categories.
An economic impact analysis was performed for the proposed
regulatory requirements. Potential cost, price, and output effects for
the consumer products industry were examined. The analysis performed
was based on data from the 1990 Consumer Products Survey. The estimated
national cost of reformulating the ``noncompliant'' consumer products,
if all products exceeding the VOC standards reformulated, would be
approximately $26.0 million per year. This includes changes in variable
(material) costs as well as the initial reformulation cost annualized
over time. To the extent that lower-reformulations have already taken
place since 1990, this cost estimate will overstate the true costs of
this proposed regulation. Also, extremely small-volume products are
likely to be withdrawn from the market rather than incur the fixed
costs of reformulation.
The collective effect of some products being removed from the
market and other products bearing higher costs of production will
likely lead to changes in market prices and quantities. The estimated
market effects are generally quite slight. Price effects in each market
range from no effect to an approximately three percent increase.
Market-level price effects are typically less than 0.1 percent.
Quantity effects are similarly small, ranging from virtually no effect
to a 1.7 percent reduction. Quantity effects, too, are typically less
than 0.1 percent.
Given that producers would choose their least costly compliance
option (i.e., product withdraw or reformulation), the estimated social
cost of the regulation (including reformulation costs or lost profits
from product withdraws) is approximately $21.3 million per year
(estimated in 1991 dollars), with an estimated range from $17.1 million
to $23.0 million by varying some key assumptions. The range of total
social cost estimates for the regulation all fall below one percent of
baseline revenue for the affected industry sectors.

D. Cost-Effectiveness

The EPA often compares the relative cost of different measures for
controlling a pollutant by calculating the ``cost-effectiveness'' of
the measures. Using the EPA's traditional calculation methodology, the
cost-effectiveness of a regulation that applies nationwide is based on
a comparison of national costs and nationwide emission reductions. This
comparison is expressed as the cost per megagram (Mg) (or ton) of
emissions reduced. Using social cost and emission reduction figures
presented earlier in this section of the preamble, the nationwide cost-
effectiveness of the proposed regulation is $260 per Mg ($237 per ton).
Alternative ways to calculate a measure of the ``cost-
effectiveness'' of

[[Page 14535]]
the regulation have been suggested by others. One alternative would be
to calculate cost-effectiveness on the basis of the nationwide cost of
the regulation ($21.3 million for the proposed regulation) and the VOC
reduction achieved in ozone nonattainment areas. The stated rationale
for this approach is that cost-effectiveness measures should be
designed in a way that best represents the objective of the regulatory
action. In this case, for example, a major objective, though not the
only objective, of these regulations is the control of ozone formation
in nonattainment areas. By establishing nationwide standards, the cost
of achieving emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas during
the ozone seasons requires nationwide expenditures during all seasons
of the year, including expenditures year-round in areas currently in
attainment with the current standard. These nationwide emission
reductions--including emission reductions outside of nonattainment
areas and out of the ozone season--may or may not contribute to efforts
to limit ozone in nonattainment areas, depending on whether they
participate in ozone transport from one area to another. One example of
the application of this method is presented in a December 21, 1993,
draft Regulatory Impact Analysis developed by the EPA OMS in which
control of emissions from refueling of light duty vehicles (i.e.,
onboard refueling vapor recovery, or ORVR) could viably be applied
either nationwide or in nonattainment areas alone. In this example,
regional regulation represented an important alternative to national
regulation. The OMS calculated cost-effectiveness using (1) nationwide
costs and nationwide emission reductions, as well as (2) nationwide
costs and the emission reductions achieved in nonattainment areas.
In the case of this consumer products rule, the proportion of
emission reductions occurring in ozone nonattainment areas can be
roughly calculated by assuming emission reductions are proportional to
population; approximately 110 million of the 260 million U.S.
population currently live in nonattainment areas. Thus, the fraction of
the nationwide year-round emission reductions that occur in
nonattainment areas is about 42 percent. Accordingly, on a
nonattainment area basis, the cost-effectiveness of the rule would be
$618/Mg ($563/ton). A similar calculation could be done to account for
the seasonality of ozone formation.
While such an approach offers a measure of the cost of emission
reductions in nonattainment areas, the EPA sees significant drawbacks
to this approach. First, cost-effectiveness figures would no longer
provide a consistent basis for comparison of the relative cost of
different control measures or regulations considered at different
points in time. Because the number and location of nonattainment areas
changes frequently, the initial calculation of the cost-effectiveness
of a rule would depend upon when it was issued. The EPA believes it is
important that cost-effectiveness be calculated in a consistent manner
that allows for valid comparisons. Also, introducing new methodology
would tend to make new control measures appear superficially to be less
cost-effective than measures utilized in the past, simply because of a
change in well-established terminology.
Second, this alternative approach attributes all costs of the rule
to emission reductions achieved in nonattainment areas and no cost to
emission reductions achieved in attainment areas. By not including
emission reductions in attainment areas, the methodology assumes that
emission reductions in areas which attain the NAAQS for ozone have no
value. In fact, attainment areas often contribute to pollution problems
in nonattainment areas through the transport of emissions downwind.
Also, emission reductions in attainment areas help to maintain clean
air as the economy grows and new pollution sources come into existence.
Furthermore, measures to reduce emissions of VOC often reduce emissions
of toxic air pollutants.
Another alternative that has been suggested would be to calculate
not only the emission reductions but also the cost if the requirements
applied only in ozone nonattainment areas, perhaps through issuance of
a CTG. The EPA has not estimated the cost of using a CTG to regulate
only those products sold for use in ozone nonattainment areas. However,
the industry has advised the EPA that the cost of having different
product lines for attainment versus nonattainment areas would be
prohibitive due to the duplicative effort of labeling, storage and
distribution management. Therefore, it is expected that a cost-
effectiveness estimate calculated based on this approach would be
significantly higher than one calculated on the basis of both
nationwide costs and emission reductions. Consequently, it is possible
that in the case of a CTG approach, the industry might choose to
reformulate products for nationwide distribution rather than develop
two formulations of the same product. The use of CTG is discussed
further in Section V(F)(2) of this notice.
The EPA is planning to review internally the generic question of
the alternative approach to measuring costs against emission
reductions. The results of this review are not available for
incorporation into this rulemaking. Therefore, the EPA requests
comments on the traditional and alternative methods discussed above to
characterize the cost-effectiveness of this and other Section 183(e)
regulations.

V. Rationale for Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Pollutant

The purpose of Section 183(e) of the CAA is to reduce the emissions
of VOC from the use, consumption, storage, disposal, destruction, or
decomposition of consumer and commercial products. Therefore, the
standards proposed today regulate VOC. The proposed rule requires that
the manufacturer, importer, or distributor of subject consumer products
document the VOC content of each formulation. The EPA definition of VOC
(found at 40 CFR Part 51, subpart F, and amended at 60 FR 31633) is
very broad and includes virtually any organic compound that is not
specifically exempted from the definition. (Compounds are exempt from
this definition when they have been found to have negligible
photochemical reactivity.)
Consumer products often contain ingredients which are of extremely
low volatility. These low-volatility compounds are used in such
ingredients as surfactants used in shampoos and laundry detergents,
heavy oils used in lubricants, and waxes used in lip balms and underarm
antiperspirants. If volatility is not considered, many consumer
products contain 100 percent VOC by definition. Since, in some cases,
all the products in a category may be of equal VOC content (100
percent), the EPA efforts to evaluate products with regard to
availability of alternative products were severely limited. To address
this problem, the EPA examined the possibility of targeting only those
consumer product ingredients with relatively higher volatility in order
to be able to distinguish among products. This in no way should be
construed to mean that the EPA is not concerned about emissions of all
VOC, regardless of volatility, and in no way alters the EPA existing
overall VOC policy.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA adopted a volatility
threshold for determining which ingredients are to be included in the
VOC content calculations under the proposed rule. This approach
addresses a subset of

[[Page 14536]]
VOC found in the consumer products subject to this proposed rule and is
not to be considered a precedent for future rules. A consumer product
ingredient is to be counted as part of the VOC content of a product
subject to the proposed rule if it is a VOC by the EPA definition and
meets one of the following criteria:
(1) The ingredient compound has a vapor pressure greater than 0.1
millimeter of mercury (mmHg) at 20 deg.C; or
(2) The vapor pressure for the ingredient compound is unknown, and
the compound's empirical formula contains 12 or less carbon atoms; or
(3) The vapor pressure for the ingredient compound is unknown, and
the compound exists as a solid at room temperature (20 deg.C) but
readily sublimes (becomes a vapor at room temperature).
As discussed in Section II.C of this preamble, several States have
adopted consumer product rules. Each of these State rules are based on
these same volatility criteria.
Throughout this preamble and regulation, the term VOC is used.
However, the only VOC that must be used in determining compliance are
those VOC not specifically excluded by the criteria listed above. All
reported emission reductions are also based on this subset of VOC. The
EPA recently exempted acetone from the definition of VOC (60 FR 31633);
therefore, the proposed standards do not apply to acetone. The EPA
recognizes that some States have not exempted acetone from their
definitions of VOC, and may need to adjust accordingly.

B. Selection of Best Available Controls (BAC)

Standards under Section 183(e) of the CAA must reflect BAC. The CAA
defines BAC as follows:

(A) Best Available Controls--The term `best available controls'
means the degree of emissions reduction the Administrator
determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility,
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for
use, consumption, storage, or disposal.

The EPA has determined that BAC for 23 of the consumer product
categories proposed for regulation consists of specific VOC content
limits, expressed as the weight-percent VOC, for each consumer product
category. For charcoal lighter fluid, BAC is expressed as the amount of
VOC emitted during use as determined by the method presented in Section
59.208 of the rule. Section 183(e) of the CAA allows the EPA to
consider a wide range of strategies and technologies in determining
BAC. The determination must be based on technological and economic
feasibility, as well as on health, environmental, and energy impacts.
The EPA has determined that, in most cases, all or most of a product's
VOC content is emitted during product use. (The EPA has determined that
the use of certain consumer products results in VOC being washed down
drains where they are decomposed and do not result in air emissions.
This issue is documented in the ``Consumer and Commercial Products
Report to Congress''; EPA-453/R-94-066-A.) Regulations that attempt to
control consumption or user habits are considered to be impractical and
undesirable. Therefore, the EPA concluded that limits on the amount of
VOC incorporated into the products would be the most feasible and least
disruptive control measure. Additionally, in working to comply with
State VOC rules over the past several years, the consumer products
industry has established product reformulation as the most
technologically and economically feasible strategy for reducing VOC
emissions. The proposed standard reflects BAC and was developed based
primarily on the EPA consumer products survey, analysis of existing
State rules for consumer products, and information gathered during the
EPA study of the consumer and commercial products industry.
The EPA recognizes a need to proceed with development of these
standards as quickly and expeditiously as possible. State and local
agencies and representatives of the consumer products industry have
expressed concern about the current lack of Federal VOC standards for
consumer products. The persistence of the ground-level ozone problem
has caused State and local air pollution agencies to seek emission
reductions beyond those obtained through regulation of the conventional
mobile and stationary sources of emissions. As a result, several
agencies are adopting rules to regulate various household consumer
products. Representatives of the consumer products industry have
expressed concern that differences in State and local requirements for
consumer products could disrupt the national distribution network for
consumer products. The industry has therefore urged the EPA to issue
national rules for consumer products to provide consistency across the
country. States needing emission reductions are also supportive of an
EPA rulemaking that will assist them in their efforts toward
achievement of ozone attainment.
In June 1994 the consumer products industry, represented by the
CSMA and the CTFA, submitted recommended VOC content limits to the EPA
for 24 consumer product categories. These limits were based on
extensive negotiations between industry and various State regulators.
The EPA determined that the regulatory development process for consumer
products could be expedited by using the CSMA/CTFA recommendations as a
starting point. Therefore, the EPA analyzed the CSMA/CTFA-recommended
VOC content limits to assess whether they reflect BAC as defined by the
CAA. The analysis revealed that the recommended VOC content limits
would require that approximately 34 percent of products in these 24
categories be reformulated and that emissions of VOC from the use of
products in these categories would be reduced by 20 percent. The
recommended limits would also allow for a variety of products in each
category, and would therefore not adversely affect the range of choices
available to consumers. The limit proposed for each product category is
currently demonstrated (i.e., available to consumers) in several
different formulations, and is consistent with limits currently
enforced by States that have consumer products rules (see Table 3).
For some product categories, the EPA's database suggested that
lower VOC content limits might be feasible (see Table 4). However, the
EPA has chosen to propose standards similar to those proposed or
currently enforced by States because the existence of these standards,
and the fact that industries are already complying with these
standards, provides stronger evidence that these levels are achievable
for a wide range of product applications at current levels of product
efficacy.
The EPA recently added acetone to the list of compounds exempt from
the definition of VOC. The proposed VOC limit for nail polish removers
is 85 percent. This level was not lowered following the acetone
exemption, because polish removers designed for use with artificial
nails are based on solvents other than acetone to avoid damage to the
nails. The EPA determined that subcategorization of polish removers for
natural nails and artificial nails would result in no emission
reductions and would increase recordkeeping and reporting burden
unnecessarily.

[[Page 14537]]

The regulation of consumer products will have unique technical and
economic impacts due to its direct effects on consumers and the degree
to which perception affects consumer product demand. Regulation of the
use of household and personal products will immediately and directly
impact the public. The EPA has determined, through intensive studies of
various sectors of the consumer products industry (as documented in the
Consumer and Commercial Products Report to Congress), that product VOC
content affects not only the technical performance of consumer
products, but the compatibility of ingredients with each other and with
packaging materials, the consumers' perception of efficacy, product
life, and aesthetic appeal. Additionally, particular populations of
consumers are sensitive to, or cannot use, some VOC ingredients, which
are therefore replaced with alternate ingredients in similar products.
Therefore, replacement of VOC ingredients requires a series of
relatively complex product development, and consumer and market testing
activities.
The range of VOC content levels in consumer products currently on
the market reflects the range of products that provides for the wide
variety of applications and expectations that comprise the consumer
products market. These VOC content levels also reflect several years of
negotiation between manufacturers and State regulatory agencies, and
subsequent redesign of products to meet State limits. Setting VOC
content limits equivalent to the lower end of the range currently
marketed has the potential to adversely affect consumer choices and to
eliminate certain product applications and efficacy levels from the
market. The EPA does not have evidence or information to indicate that
such impacts are warranted to achieve an additional level of emission
reductions. To the contrary, the recommended VOC content limits will
achieve significant VOC emission reductions without eliminating any
identifiable product niches or applications, and without adverse market
impacts. Therefore, the EPA has determined that the recommended VOC
content limits reflect BAC, and the EPA is proposing those limits in
this action.

C. Selection of Special Provisions

The standards proposed today include several special provisions;
these provisions were necessary to ensure that the standards apply only
where necessary and where the EPA has concluded that the standards can
be met. These provisions include methods for calculating VOC content of
specific products, as well as exemptions for specific product types.
1. Determination of VOC Content
As discussed in Section IV.B of this preamble, the EPA has limited
the VOC that are included for compliance determination. For aerosol
antiperspirant and aerosol deodorant products, the proposed VOC content
limits apply only to HVOC, which are defined as VOC with a vapor
pressure equal to or greater than 80 mmHg at 20 deg. C. As a result,
only the propellants in these products are regulated. Other VOC
ingredients in these products have vapor pressures less than 80 mmHg.
Ethanol is the most prevalent nonpropellant VOC ingredient in
antiperspirants and deodorants. Information submitted by the CTFA
states that ethanol provides several different functions in
antiperspirants and deodorants including active ingredient (as an
antimicrobial), a solvent for other active ingredients, and fragrance
enhancer. The CTFA reports that there is no non-VOC substitute for
ethanol in these products. Consequently, the proposed standards do not
apply to nonpropellant VOC in antiperspirants and deodorants.
In addition, the EPA has concluded that the minimum feasible
fragrance content in consumer products is two weight-percent.
Therefore, in calculating the total VOC weight-percent of a product to
demonstrate compliance, fragrance ingredients up to a combined level of
two weight-percent are not included; fragrance ingredients in excess of
two percent must be included in the calculation of total VOC content.
2. Products for Use Outside the U.S.
The EPA has also included a provision that limits the standards to
consumer products manufactured or imported for use in the United
States. The intent of Section 183(e) of the CAA is to limit VOC from
the use of consumer and commercial products in the United States;
therefore, impacting products exported for sale in other countries is
beyond the scope of these standards.
3. Product-Specific Exemptions
Several specific exemptions have been provided in cases where the
EPA has determined that no alternative technology exists. Insecticides
containing 98 percent paradichlorobenzene or naphthalene are exempt
from today's standards; no known reformulation technology exists to
replace these moth repellents. Similarly, air fresheners that consist
entirely of perfume are exempt because there is not non-volatile
replacement for perfumes.
Adhesives sold in containers less than one fluid ounce are also
exempted from these standards. Virtually all adhesives sold in
containers of less than one ounce are specialty hobby or instant bond
glues that are used in very small amounts (e.g., a few drops per
application). Again, the EPA has concluded that no reformulation
technology exists for these specialty adhesives. In addition, as these
glues form bonds, the volatile compounds absorb water from the air and
become nonvolatile. Therefore, emissions from their use are negligible.
The proposed standards allow one additional year before compliance
is required for subject FIFRA-registered products. This extra
compliance time is necessary due to the testing, labeling, and
registration burden associated with FIFRA compliance.
The EPA has added a specific exemption for insect bait standards
from the proposed standards. These products contain solid material
designed to be ingested by insects and contain no VOC. Without an
exemption, these products would be covered under the crawling insect
category. While these products could easily meet the standard, there is
no justification to require any reporting or recordkeeping for these
products.
4. Innovative Product Provisions
The proposed rule includes an alternate compliance method that
manufacturers and importers of consumer products may choose in lieu of
meeting a VOC content limit. The innovative product provisions exempt a
specific product formulation from the VOC content limits if that
product can be shown to emit less VOC than a representative product in
the same category that does meet the VOC content limit. The
manufacturer or importer must demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that use of the innovative product will result in equal or
less VOC emissions than a representative complying product due to the
innovative product's formulation, design, delivery system, or other
characteristics. The innovative product provisions are included in the
proposed rule to allow flexibility to consumer product formulations
without compromising VOC emission reductions, and to encourage
formulators to pursue new technologies that may reduce VOC emissions.
The consumer products industry is characterized by frequent
introduction

[[Page 14538]]
of new and modified products. Through the innovative product
provisions, manufacturers can continue to market a variety of product
choices while achieving the proposed emission reductions. In addition,
manufacturers or importers would be allowed to market innovative
products immediately upon notifying the Administrator of their intent
to do so, and provided that all required documentation on the
innovative product's potential emissions has been submitted.
5. Compliance Variance
The proposed rule includes a variance provision whereby
manufacturers or importers of subject consumer products may apply to
the Administrator for a temporary variance from compliance with the
standards. A variance will be granted if the applicant demonstrates
that compliance would result in economic hardship, and that granting
the variance would better serve the public interest than would
requiring continuous compliance under the conditions of economic
hardship. The EPA intends for this provision to allow manufacturers and
importers some flexibility in responding to unforeseen circumstances
that may cause additional, unanticipated compliance burden. The EPA
recognizes that certain interruptions in the availability of raw
materials and/or manufacturing processes may affect ability to
continuously comply with the standards. In particular, the EPA
anticipates that this variance provision will help to mitigate impacts
to small businesses. Within the consumer products industry, small
businesses are likely to have fewer research and development resources,
and therefore, will benefit from the allowed variance.

D. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

In selecting reporting and recordkeeping requirements for this
rule, the EPA balanced the need to ensure compliance with the directive
to ensure that burden is minimized. The proposed standards include the
minimum reporting and recordkeeping requirements that the EPA
determined were necessary to ensure compliance. Recordkeeping
requirements must be met for each product formulation by the
manufacturer or importer listed on the product label. If more than one
party is listed on the label, the company for whom the product was
manufactured is required to carry out recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
For products listed on Tables 1 and 2 (i.e., all subject products
except charcoal lighter fluid), records must be kept for three years of
each product's formulation, and daily records must be kept of the
weight percent of each VOC ingredient included in each product. For
charcoal lighter fluid, records must be kept for three years of the
data collected and results for all emissions tests performed according
to Section 59.208.
The only report required is a one-time initial notification report,
due on September 1, 1996, and required of all manufacturers or
importers of subject consumer products. The report must include
identifying and location information for the respondent, a description
of their product date coding systems, and a list of subject products
manufactured, imported, or distributed. An updated description of any
date code that may have been revised subsequent to the initial
notification report must be submitted within 30 days of its first use.

E. Selection of Test Method

The proposed standards rely predominantly on formulation
information to demonstrate compliance. The VOC content for each product
must be calculated based on mass balance of the constituents used to
manufacture the product and any other byproducts or waste streams.
The EPA is proposing a separate test protocol for determining
compliance for charcoal lighter materials. In order to accomplish their
intended purpose, charcoal lighter materials consist entirely of VOC.
The standard for charcoal lighter fluid, therefore, consists of a limit
on the amount of VOC that can be emitted during use.

F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches

1. Other Systems of Regulation
Section 183(e)(4) allows the EPA to consider ``any system or
systems of regulation as the Administrator may deem appropriate,
including requirements for registration and labeling, self-monitoring
and reporting, prohibitions, limitations, or economic incentives
(including marketable permits and auctions of emission rights)
concerning the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, consumption,
or disposal of the product.'' Accordingly, the EPA requests comment on
any alternative to the proposed system of regulation.
2. Regulation with the Use of CTG
Section 183(e)(3)(C) gives the EPA the flexibility to ``issue
control techniques guidelines under this Act in lieu of regulations
required under subparagraph (A) if the Administrator determines that
such guidance will be substantially as effective as regulations in
reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds which contribute to
ozone levels in areas which violate the national ambient air quality
standard for ozone.''
In many cases, CTG can be effective regulatory approaches to reduce
emissions of VOC in nonattainment areas--with the advantage of not
imposing control costs on attainment areas, where benefits of reducing
VOC emissions may be less. For example, VOC emissions from commercial
products used in industrial settings could be controlled effectively
with a CTG that targeted emissions at the point of end-use, as the
population of end users is likely to be readily identifiable. Also, for
a potentially large share of nonattainment area VOC emission sources,
enforcement and compliance could effectively be focused at the source
of the VOC emissions through the use of a CTG, be it the point of
manufacture, the point of end-use, or both. However, for small volume
consumer products that are widely used (e.g., the products covered by
this proposed rule), a CTG might not be effective at reducing VOC
emissions because of difficulties in enforcement. The EPA requests
comment on whether and how a CTG approach (by itself, or in combination
with any other regulatory alternatives) would be as effective as a
national rule in reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas,
not only for the proposed consumer products rule but also for other
product categories scheduled for regulation under Section 183(e) of the
CAA (see 60 FR 15264, March 23, 1995).
3. VOC Standards for a Subset of Categories
Individual cost-effectiveness values for each of the 24 product
categories are based primarily on cost information which was developed
and provided by industry representatives to the EPA. The calculated
cost-effectiveness of the 24 categories varies widely, from $68 to
$10,400 per Mg ($62 to $9455 per ton). Rather than regulate all 24
product categories, the EPA could select a more cost-effective subset.
With this approach, it appears that the rule could achieve most of the
emissions reductions for a portion of the cost. For example, regulating
15 categories of consumer products would yield about 80 percent of the
emissions reductions expected to be achieved by the proposed rule at
about 30 percent of the total cost. As discussed in Section V.B., the
EPA has included requirements for all 24

[[Page 14539]]
product categories based on input from State and industry
representatives. The industry representatives have suggested that
national regulations for these products benefit industry by promoting
consistent regulation throughout the country. A national rule makes it
less likely that additional States will adopt different standards to
limit VOC emissions from the same products. The industry
representatives have also asserted that inconsistent State standards
could impose additional costs on the industry. The EPA requests comment
on setting emission limits for the most cost-effective subset of the 24
consumer product categories as discussed here.
4. Discretion to Consider Section 183(e) Ranking Factors During
Rulemaking
In establishing criteria for regulating consumer and commercial
products, Section 183(e)(2)(B) requires the EPA to consider the
following factors: (1) the uses, benefits, and commercial demand of
consumer and commercial products; (2) the health or safety functions
(if any) served such consumer and commercial products; (3) those
consumer and commercial products which emit highly reactive VOC into
the ambient air; (4) those consumer and commercial products which are
subject to the most cost-effective controls; and (5) the availability
of alternatives (if any) to such consumer and commercial products which
are of comparable costs, considering health, safety, and environmental
impacts.
In order to develop the schedule for regulation of consumer and
commercial products under Section 183(e), the EPA established and
exercised criteria based on the above factors and other considerations.
Others have suggested that the five factors should be considered not
only in setting priorities but also at the time of rulemaking for
specific categories of products. The EPA requests comment on their
discretion to consider the five factors in specific regulatory actions.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, (October 4, 1993)), the
EPA must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the executive
order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the executive order.
Pursuant to the terms of the executive order, OMB has notified the
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the executive order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the docket (see ADDRESSEES).

B. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875

In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the EPA has involved
State and local governments in the development of this rule. State and
local air pollution control associations (CARB, New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
and STAPPA/ALAPCO) have provided regulatory review support.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the
UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable
duties on any of these governmental entities. In any event, the EPA has
determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. ____) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 M St. SW.; Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The information required to be collected by this proposed rule is
necessary to identify the regulated entities who are subject to the
rule and to ensure their compliance with the rule. The recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are mandatory and are being established
under authority of Section 114 of the CAA. All information submitted to
the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be
safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in Title 40,
Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B--Confidentiality of Business Information
(see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36092, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999,
September 8, 1978; 43

[[Page 14540]]
FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection averaged over the first three years is estimated to be
28,386 hours per year. The average burden, per respondent, is 129 hours
per year. The total annualized recordkeeping and reporting costs for
the proposed rule are estimated to be $964,416 and consist wholly of
operation and maintenance costs. There are no capital or startup costs,
or purchased services costs, associated with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of this rule. There would be an estimated
220 respondents to the proposed collection requirements. Average
annualized cost of reporting and recordkeeping, per respondent, is
$4,384.
The proposed rule requires an initial one-time notification from
each respondent and subsequent notifications each time the date code is
changed.
Formulations and ingredient usage would be recorded for each batch
of production. Respondents seeking a variance must submit an
application which provides information to the EPA necessary in
determining whether to grant the variance. The application would
include the specific grounds on which the variance is sought, proposed
date by which the requirements of the rule will be met, and a plan for
achieving compliance. Supporting documentation is required of companies
who wish to market a product subject to the ``innovative products''
provision of the proposed rule. This documentation includes information
on VOC emissions from the use of the product as compared to emissions
from a product formulated in compliance with the Table of Standards.
The proposed rule requires that the labels of all subject consumer
products display the date of manufacture. However, there should be no
additional burden imposed due to this labeling requirement, because
manufacturers routinely date-code their products. The date can be in
coded form. All manufacturers and importers of subject products must
submit an explanation of all date codes used. Date code explanations
must be submitted with the initial report. Thereafter, respondents must
submit explanations of any new date codes within 30 days of their first
use.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St. S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St. N.W.; Washington, DC 20503; marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA''. Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after April 2, 1996, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 2,
1996. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or RFA, Public Law 96-354,
September 19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special
consideration to the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA
specifies that a final regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared
if a proposed regulation will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. To determine whether a final RFA
is required, a screening analysis, otherwise known as an initial RFA,
is necessary.
Regulatory impacts are considered significant if:
(1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production by
more than five percent, or
(2) Annual compliance costs as a percentage of sales are at least
20 percent higher for small entities, or
(3) Capital cost of compliance represents a significant portion of
capital available to small entities, or
(4) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in
closures of small entities.
A ``substantial number'' of small entities is generally considered
to be more than 20 percent of the small entities in the affected
industry.
The RFA requires the EPA to consider potential adverse impacts of
proposed regulations on small entities and to consider regulatory
options that might mitigate any such impacts. It is currently the EPA's
policy to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of the potential
impacts of proposed regulations on small entities whenever it is
anticipated that any small entities may be adversely impacted. Because
it is anticipated that some small consumer product manufacturers could
be adversely impacted from implementation of the proposed standards, a
regulatory flexibility analysis was performed.
The analysis of small entity impacts focused on the potential
impacts on small manufacturers producing consumer products. Almost 80
percent of the consumer product firms identified as subject to the
regulation are considered ``small'' by the Small Business
Administration's standard for this industry. However, these small firms
only generate about two percent of the total revenue and employment
associated with all identified firms.
The proposed regulations are expected to have some negative impact
on small producers by virtue of the fact that they have a large
presence in the regulated industries, and because they may be likely to
experience significant rates of product withdraws because it may not be
cost-effective to reformulate very small volume products. The
regulation does not, however, appear more stringent for product
categories with higher small business presence. The potential effect on
small businesses is somewhat mitigated by the fact that overall
regulatory costs are a relatively small share of total industry
revenues. The complete economic impact and regulatory flexibility
analysis is provided in the docket.
In conclusion, and pursuant to Section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The basis for the certification is that the economic impacts for small
entities do not meet or exceed the criteria in the Guidelines to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as shown above.

[[Page 14541]]

Table 1. Product Category Table of Standards VOC Content Limits

------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC
content
limit
Product category (weight-
percent
VOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air fresheners:
Single-phase................................................ 70
Double-phase................................................ 30
Liquids/pump sprays......................................... 18
Solids/gels................................................. 3
Automotive windshield washer fluid, Bathroom and tile
cleaners: 35
Aerosols.................................................... 7
All other forms............................................. 5
Carburetor and choke cleaners................................. 75
Cooking sprays, Aerosols...................................... 18
Dusting aids:
Aerosols.................................................... 35
All other forms............................................. 7
Engine degreasers............................................. 75
Fabric protectants............................................ 75
Floor polishes/waxes:
Products for flexible flooring materials.................... 7
Products for nonresilient flooring.......................... 10
Wood floor wax.............................................. 90
Furniture maintenance products, Aerosols...................... 25
General purpose cleaners...................................... 10
Glass cleaners:
Aerosols.................................................... 12
All other forms............................................. 8
Hairsprays.................................................... 80
Hair mousses.................................................. 16
Hair styling gels............................................. 6
Household adhesives:
Aerosols.................................................... 75
Contact..................................................... 80
Construction and panel...................................... 40
General purpose............................................. 10
Structural waterproof....................................... 15
Insecticides:
Crawling bug................................................ 40
Flea and tick............................................... 25
Flying bug.................................................. 35
Foggers..................................................... 45
Lawn and Garden............................................. 20
Laundry prewash
Aerosols/solids............................................. 22
All other forms............................................. 5
Laundry starch products....................................... 5
Nail polish removers.......................................... 85
Oven cleaners:
Aerosols/pump sprays........................................ 8
Liquids..................................................... 5
Shaving creams................................................ 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Antiperspirant and Deodorant Table of Standards HVOC \1\
Content Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
HVOC \1\
content
Product category limit
(weight-
percent
HVOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antiperspirants (aerosols).................................... 60
Deodorants (aerosols)......................................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HVOC are volatile organic compounds with vapor pressure greater than
80 millimeters of mercury at 20 deg.C (68 deg.F).

Table 3.--Currently Enforced State Volatile Organic Compound Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent volatile organic compound by weight
---------------------------------------------------
Product category Proposed
VOC limit California New York Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air fresheners:
Single-phase............................................ 70 70 70 70
Double-phase............................................ 30 30 30 30
Liquids/pump sprays..................................... 18 18 18 18
Solids/gels............................................. 3 3 3 3
Automotive windshield washer fluids......................... 35 ........... ........... 23.5
Cold climate areas...................................... ........... 35 ........... ...........
All other areas......................................... ........... 10 ........... ...........
Bathroom and tile cleaners:
Aerosols.................................................. 7 7 ........... 7
All other forms........................................... 5 5 ........... 5
Carburetor and choke cleaners............................... 75 75 ........... 75
Cooking sprays--aerosols.................................... 18 18 ........... 18
Dusting aids:
Aerosols................................................ 35 35 ........... 35
All other forms......................................... 7 7 ........... 7
Engine degreasers........................................... 75 75 ........... 75
Fabric protectants.......................................... 75 75 ........... 75
Floor polishes/waxes:
Products for flexible flooring materials................ 7 7 ........... 7
Products for nonresilient flooring...................... 10 10 ........... 10
Wood floor wax.......................................... 90 90 ........... 90
Furniture maintenance product, Aerosols..................... 25 25 ........... 25
General purpose cleaners.................................... 10 10 10 10
Glass cleaners:
Aerosols................................................ 12 12 ........... 12
All other forms......................................... 8 8 ........... 6
Hairsprays.................................................. 80 80 80 80
Hair mousses................................................ 16 16 ........... 16
Hair styling gels........................................... 6 6 ........... 6
Household adhesives:
Aerosols................................................ 75 75 ........... 75
Contact................................................. 80 80 ........... 80
Construction and panel.................................. 40 40 ........... 40
General purpose......................................... 10 10 ........... 10

[[Page 14542]]

Insecticides:
Crawling bug............................................ 40 40 ........... 40
Flea and tick........................................... 25 25 ........... 25
Flying bug.............................................. 35 35 ........... 35
Foggers................................................. 45 45 ........... 45
Lawn and garden......................................... 20 20 ........... 20
Laundry prewash:
Aerosols/solids......................................... 22 22 ........... 22
All other forms......................................... 5 5 ........... 5
Laundry starch products..................................... 5 5 ........... 5
Nail polish removers........................................ 85 85 ........... 75
Oven cleaners:
Aerosols/pump sprays.................................... 8 8 ........... 8
Liquids................................................. 5 5 ........... 5
Shaving creams.............................................. 5 5 ........... 5
Antiperspirants-Aerosol..................................... 60^{a 60^{a/20^{b 60^{a20^{b 60^{a
Deodorants-Aerosol.......................................... 20^{a 20^{a/20^{b 20^{a/20^{b 20^{a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Limit is for VOC with vapor pressure equal to or greater than 80 mmHg at 20 deg.C (vp 2.0 mmHg @
20 deg.C).
^{b Limit is for VOC with vp 2.0 mmHg @ 20 deg.C.

Table 4.--Feasibility of VOC Content Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Proposed Percentage of tons
VOC content of products sold in
Product category limit ^{a achieving 1990
(weight- recommended achieving
percent limit ^{a recommended
VOC) limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air fresheners:
Single phase......................................................... 70 13 28
Dual phase........................................................... 30 66 8
Liquids/pumps sprays................................................. 18 60 27
Solids/gels.......................................................... 3 49 63
Bathroom tile cleaners:
Aerosol.............................................................. 7 61 91
Other................................................................ 5 83 57
Carburetor and choke cleaners............................................ 75 48 13
Cooking sprays--aerosols................................................. 18 36 11
Dusting aids:
Aerosol.............................................................. 35 64 88
Other................................................................ 7 56 73
Engine degreasers........................................................ 75 64 83
Fabric protectants....................................................... 75 55 76
Floor polishes/waxes:
Flexible floors...................................................... 7 100 100
Non-resilient materials.............................................. 10 100 100
Wood................................................................. 90 97 98
Furniture maintenance products........................................... 25 65 86
General purpose cleaners................................................. 10 74 88
Glass cleaners:
Aerosols............................................................. 12 49 29
Other................................................................ 8 40 88
Hairsprays............................................................... 80 33 14
Hair mousses............................................................. 16 61 58
Hair styling gels........................................................ 6 71 82
Household adhesives:
Aerosols............................................................. 75 88 86
Contact.............................................................. 80 93 98
Construction and panel............................................... 40 84 94
General purpose...................................................... 10 61 83
Non-agricultural insecticides............................................ 40 57 61
Crawling insects..................................................... 45 50 55
Foggers.............................................................. 25 69 78
Flea/tick............................................................ 35 54 87
Flying bug........................................................... 20 59 83
Lawn and garden...................................................... ........... ........... ...........
Laundry prewash aerosols/solids.......................................... 22 64 23

[[Page 14543]]

Antiperspirants--aerosols................................................ 60 ^{b 33 3
Deodorants--aerosols..................................................... 20 ^{b 40 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Consumer products,
Consumer and commercial products, Ozone, Volatile organic compound.

Dated: March 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8005 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}