EPA Issues Findings of Failure to Timely Submit Valley PM 2.5 Plan

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a Notice of Findings in the Federal Register (62720 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2018)  on Thursday that the PM 2.5 Attainment Plan for the Central Valley is overdue and that if it not completed and incorporated into the State Implementation Plan within 18 months-sanctions will be imposed that could impact Federal Highway Funds, Offsets and eventually could require a Federal Implementation Program (“FIP”).

This Notice was issued despite the fact that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District working alongside the California Air Resources Control Board has approved its PM 2.5 Plan, and it is pending before CARB for approval.

CARB is scheduled to vote on the plan in January. Until then, the EPA said, "the state shall be treated as not having made the submission… "We note, however, that CARB's submission represents a significant step in the state's and district's multiyear effort to address the act's attainment planning requirements," the EPA said.

The section in the Federal Register regarding sanctions and a portion of the relevant Clean Air Act Section is set out below:

II. Consequences of Findings of Failure

To Submit Complete SIPs

Under section 110(k)(1)(C) of the Act, here the EPA determines that a SIP submission (or part thereof) does not meet the EPA’s minimum  completeness criteria established in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, the state shall be treated as not

having made the submission (or part  thereof). Sections 179(a) and 110(c) of

the CAA establish specific consequences for failure to submit complete SIP submissions or SIP

elements required under part D of title I of the Act, including the eventual imposition of

mandatory sanctions in the affected area.

In accordance with the EPA’s sanctions sequencing rule in 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the San Joaquin Valley area 18 months after the effective date of these findings, if the EPA has not affirmatively determined by that date that the State has submitted a complete SIP addressing the deficiency that is the basis for these findings. If, within 6 months after the offset sanction applies, the EPA still has not affirmatively determined that the State has submitted a complete SIP addressing the deficiency that is the basis for the findings, the highway funding sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(1) would also apply in the San Joaquin Valley. Under 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5), neither sanction would apply if the EPA determines within 18 months after the effective date of these findings that the State has submitted a complete SIP submission addressing the deficiency that is the basis for these findings.

Additionally, a finding of failure to submit a complete SIP submission triggers an obligation under CAA  section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years after the finding, unless the state has submitted, and the EPA has approved, the required SIP submittal. Thus, the EPA would be required to promulgate a PM2.5 FIP for the San Joaquin Valley, in relevant part, if California does not submit and the EPA does not approve all of the necessary SIP submissions within 2 years after the effective date of these findings.

Clean Air Act 179(b)(2)

(b) Sanctions

The sanctions available to the Administrator as provided in subsection (a) of this section are as follows:

(1) Highway sanctions

(A) The Administrator may impose a prohibition, applicable to a nonattainment area, on the approval by the Secretary of Transportation of any projects or the awarding by the Secretary of any grants, under title 23 other than projects or grants for safety where the Secretary determines, based on accident or other appropriate data submitted by the State, that the principal purpose of the project is an improvement in safety to resolve a demonstrated safety problem and likely will result in a significant reduction in, or avoidance of, accidents. Such prohibition shall become effective upon the selection by the Administrator of this sanction.

(B) In addition to safety, projects or grants that may be approved by the Secretary, notwithstanding the prohibition in subparagraph (A), are the following—

(i) capital programs for public transit;

(ii) construction or restriction of certain roads or lanes solely for the use of passenger buses or high occupancy vehicles;

(iii) planning for requirements for employers to reduce employee work-trip-related vehicle emissions;

(iv) highway ramp metering, traffic signalization, and related programs that improve traffic flow and achieve a net emission reduction;

(v) fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities serving multiple occupancy vehicle programs or transit operations;

(vi) programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas or other areas of emission concentration particularly during periods of peak use, through road use charges, tolls, parking surcharges, or other pricing mechanisms, vehicle restricted zones or periods, or vehicle registration programs;

(vii) programs for breakdown and accident scene management, nonrecurring congestion, and vehicle information systems, to reduce congestion and emissions; and

(viii) such other transportation-related programs as the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, finds would improve air quality and would not encourage single occupancy vehicle capacity.

In considering such measures, the State should seek to ensure adequate access to downtown, other commercial, and residential areas, and avoid increasing or relocating emissions and congestion rather than reducing them.

(2) Offsets

In applying the emissions offset requirements of section 7503 of this title to new or modified sources or emissions units for which a permit is required under this part, the ratio of emission reductions to increased emissions shall be at least 2 to 1.

OEHHA has Proposed Amendments to Warning Regulations to Clarify the Definitions of Registered Agent and Actual Knowledge

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted amendments to the Clear and Reasonable Prop 65 regulations on November 20, 2017 to clarify certain provisions.

The changes relate to two mains topics:  

The first is to clarify the definition of a Registered Agent for the purposes of providing notice of the Prop 65 requirements. These changes were required as manufacturers and distributors needed clarification as to the definition of  a Registered Agent  for the purposes of allowing the transmittal of notice requirements to downstream transferees that is now permitted to transfer responsibility for warnings under the 2016 regulations.

 The changes add language to the relevant provisions of the regulations that an authorized agent is the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product.

This clarifies that the upstream entities need only to give the notice to their immediate downstream customers, which has been a question for entities attempting to comply with the 2016 regulations:

(b)  The manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor of a product

may comply with this article either by providing a warning on the product label or labeling that satisfies Section 25249.6 of the Act, or by providing a written notice directly to the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product or to the authorized agent for a retail seller who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act, which:

(1)  States that the product may result in an exposure to one or more listed chemicals;

(2)  Includes the exact name or description of the product or specific identifying information for the product such as a Universal Product Code or other identifying designation;

(3)  Includes all necessary warning materials such as labels, labeling, shelf signs or tags, and warning language for products sold on the internet, that satisfies Section 25249.6 of the Act; and

(4)  Has been sent to the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act or to the authorized agent for the retail seller, and the manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor has obtained confirmation electronically or in writing of receipt of the notice.

(c)  If the manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor of a product is complying with this section by providing a written notice directly to the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act or to the authorized agent for the retail seller:

(1)  Confirmation of receipt of the notice must be received electronically or in writing, and must be renewed, and receipt of the renewed notice confirmed electronically or in writing by the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act or the authorized agent for the retail seller's authorized agent no later than February 28, 2019, then annually thereafter during the period in which the product is sold in California by the retail seller.

(2)Where a business has not designated an authorized agent, the manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor may serve the notice on the legal agent for service of process for the business.

(b) The manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor of a product

may comply with this article either by providing a warning on the product label or labeling that satisfies Section 25249.6 of the Act, or by providing a written notice directly to the authorized agent for the business to which they are selling or transferring the product or to the authorized agent for a retail seller who is subject to Section 25249.6 of the Act....

 The second change relates to what "actual knowledge" means with respect to duties of the retailers under the Prop 65,  2016 Amendments to the Clear and Reasonable Warnings. 

(f) For purposes of subsection (e)(5), “actual knowledge” means specific knowledge of the consumer product exposure with sufficient specificity for the retail seller to readily identify the product that requires a warning, and that is received by the authorized agent or a person whose knowledge can be imputed to the retail seller from any reliable source. If the source of this knowledge is a notice served pursuant to Section 25249.7(d)(1) of the Act, the retail seller shall not be deemed to have actual knowledge of any consumer product exposure that is alleged in the notice until five business days after the retail seller receives a notice that provides a description of the product with sufficient specificity for the retail seller to readily identify the product in accordance with

Article 9, section 25903(b)(2)(D).

The actual knowledge provision is in turn significant because it relates to the instances when a retailer becomes responsible for the warning.

(e) The retail seller is responsible for providing the warning required by Section 25249.6 of the Act for a consumer product exposure only when one or more of the following circumstances exist:

(5) The retail seller has actual knowledge of the potential consumer product exposure requiring the warning, and there is no manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier, or distributor of the product who: (A) Is a “person in the course of doing business” under Section 25249.11(b) of the Act, and (B) Has designated an agent for service of process in California, or has a place of business in California.

OEHHA will receive comments by 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2018. All comments will be posted on the OEHHA website at the close of the public comment period.

Prop 65 Proposed Changes to Calculating Exposure to Reproductive Chemicals in Food

(OEHHA) has proposed changes to the regulations that govern how Prop 65 reproductive toxicants in foods should be calculated. The proposed changes to the Prop 65 regulations amend 27 CCR §25821(a) and 27 CCR §25821(c) (2) purportedly to prevent incorrect or inconsistent determinations as to the applicability of Prop 65.  https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/proposed-amendment-sections-25821a-and-c-level-exposure-chemicals-causing.

§ 25821. Level of Exposure to Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity

(a) For purposes of the Act, “level in question” means the chemical concentration of a listed chemical for the exposure in question.  The exposure in question includes the exposure for which the person in the course of doing business is responsible, and does not include exposure to a listed chemical from any other source or product.  For purposes of this section, where a business presents evidence fo r the “level in qu e stio n ”   of a listed chemical in a food product based on the average of multiple samples of that food, the level in question may not be calculated by averaging the concentration of the chemical in food products from different manufacturers or producers, or that were manufactured in different manufacturing facilities from the product at issue.

This proposed rule bars a producer from calculating an average exposure level from multiple samples based on food from different manufacturers or producers or from different manufacturing facilities. OEHHA stated that they believe  that it is inconsistent with the purposes of [Prop. 65] to average concentrations of chemicals in products manufactured over extended periods, and “based on concentrations measured in samples of foods from different manufacturers or producers, or from different manufacturing facilities, because these are not necessarily representative of the levels of the chemical in products an individual would typically be exposed to when consuming a particular product in California.” Initial Statement of Reasons https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/isor25821100518.pdf at p.9.

OEHHA also made proposed changes to the way the rate of intake or exposure is calculated:

§ 25821.(c)(2) For exposures to consumer products, the level of exposure shall be calculated using the reasonably anticipated rate of intake or exposure for average users of the consumer product, and not on a per capita basis for the general population.  This rate of intake or exposure is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the rate of intake or exposure for users of the product. The rate of intake or exposure shall be based on data for use of a general category or categories of consumer products, such as the United States Department of Agriculture Home Economic Research Report, Foods Commonly Eaten by Individuals: Amount Per Day and Per Eating Occasion, where such data are available.

In this section 27 CCR § 25821(c)(2), OEHHA  attempts to define  the method of calculating  the reasonably anticipated rate of intake  by using the arithmetic mean of differing exposure rates. According to OEHHA the arithmetic mean best captures that variability because it, unlike a geometric mean or median methodology it “accounts for consumption levels at both the low and the high end of the range, weighing the intake of each consumer equally.” Initial Statement of Reasons at p.8.

These amendments would arguably abrogate the state appellate court decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition. et al., (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 307, (“Beech-Nut”) in which the Court allowed exposure calculations based on the average lead levels across different manufacturers and facilities. It also permitted the use of the geometric mean to calculate rates of rather than the arithmetic as these proposed rules require.

OEHHA in the Initial Statement or Reasons makes it clear that they believe that the Court in Beech-Nut was wrong:

Neither [of the Court] finding[s]  is consistent with the intent of OEHHA’s regulations or Proposition 65, which is focused on an individual exposure from a specific product. Therefore, OEHHA believes that the regulations should be clarified so that businesses and courts can apply the correct analysis in the future. It should be noted that it is also inconsistent with the purposes of the Act to average concentrations of chemicals in products manufactured over extended periods. OEHHA considered including a time element in this regulation. Initial Statement of Reasons at p.11

The consequence of these new rules would be to make it more difficult for food producers to support a decision to forego labeling certain food products, as  the proposed  rule makes the Prop 65 threshold more difficult to calculate because of  the inherent variability of constituents in foods with respect to the levels in the foods and the variability of  the rate of exposure to consumers.

 The Public comment cutoff was extended until November 26, 2018 and with a public hearing that will be held on November 19, 2018.Public comments cutoff was extended until November 26, 2018 and with a public hearing that will be held on November 19, 2018.