Safer Consumer Products: Listing Motor Vehicle Tires Containing N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl-p- phenylenediamine (6PPD) as a Priority Product in Regulation

2023080109

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)

NOE - Notice of Exemption

8/4/2023

8/4/2023

Topher Buck

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Safer Consumer Products Program

Senior Environmental Scientist

Lead/Public Agency

1101 I Street, 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806

(916) 445-2928

topher.buck@dtsc.ca.gov

Statewide

Statutory Exemption

Feasibility or Planning Study [14 CCR §15262]; Data Collection [14 CCR §15306]; 14 CCR §15061(b)(3)

This Priority Product listing requires notifications from any manufacturer of the Priority Product if its product is sold in California and the possible creation of reports that evaluate alternatives to the Priority Product. DTSC cannot anticipate how individual manufacturers will choose to comply with the regulation, and DTSC cannot mandate a particular response. For instance: • Any number of manufacturers may elect to stop selling their product in California once the rule is final, or even before. • Any number of manufacturers may elect to stop producing a particular formula of a suite of products that they currently manufacture to avoid using the named Chemical of Concern. • Any number of manufacturers may elect to complete an Abridged Alternatives Analysis. • Any number of manufacturers may elect to complete a two-stage Alternatives Analysis and propose to adopt an alternative product. • Any number of manufacturers may be subject to regulatory response if there are Alternative Analysis Reports DTSC needs to evaluate and if, based on the Report’s conclusions, DTSC determines one or more regulatory responses is necessary to address remaining potential exposures or adverse impacts associated with the Priority Product or selected alternative. It would therefore be speculative to predict how many (or if any) manufacturers would choose a particular compliance pathway. Further regulatory action is not legally compelled or presumed by DTSC’s decision to list the Priority Product. DTSC finds that the Alternatives Analysis process meets the definition of a feasibility or planning study for possible future action that has not yet been approved, adopted, or funded (14 CCR § 15262). Any regulatory response that DTSC may impose following its review of an Alternatives Analysis Report will be subject to CEQA requirements at the point of determination. Such regulatory responses cannot be determined until after the Alternatives Analysis has been completed. Additionally, DTSC has no evidence of potential direct or indirect physical change to the environment that would result from the required notifications, creation of Alternatives Analysis Reports, or the two automatic regulatory responses that would be triggered by the submittal of an Abridged Alternatives Analysis Report. DTSC has no evidence that this regulation would result in a change in any of the physical conditions within California, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.