[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69290-69298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26070]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL-7840-7]
RIN 2060-AK37
Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds--Exclusion of Four Compounds
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises EPA's definition of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) for purposes of preparing State implementation plans
(SIPs) to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This revision would add
four compounds to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of
VOC on the basis that these compounds make a negligible contribution to
tropospheric ozone formation. This revision will modify the definition
of VOC to say that: 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane (n-
C3F7OCH3) (known as HFE-7000); 3-
ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane
(known as HFE-7500, HFE-s702, T-7145, and L-15381); 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropane (known as HFC 227ea); and methyl formate
(HCOOCH3) will be considered to be negligibly reactive. If
you use or produce any of these four compounds and are subject to EPA
regulations limiting the use of VOCs in your product, limiting the VOC
emissions from your facility, or otherwise controlling your use of
VOCs, then you will not count these four compounds as a VOC in
determining whether you meet these regulatory obligations. This action
may also affect whether these four compounds are considered to be VOCs
[[Page 69291]]
for State regulatory purposes, depending on whether the State relies on
EPA's definition of VOC. As a result, if States and States' industries
are subject to certain Federal regulations limiting emissions of VOCs,
i.e., emissions of 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane, or 3-
ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane,
or 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane, or methyl formate, these emissions
may not be regulated for some purposes according to the rules governing
States' enforceability of the measures.
With this action, EPA is not finalizing a decision on how the
Agency will evaluate future VOC exemption petitions. Currently, EPA is
in the process of assessing its VOC policy in general. We intend to
publish a future notice inviting public comment on the VOC exemption
policy and the concept of negligible reactivity as part of a broader
review of overall policy.
In addition to granting the four new exemptions described above, we
are making a nomenclature clarification to two previously-exempted
compounds. We will thus add the nomenclature designations ``HFE-7100''
to 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane
(C4F9OCH3) and ``HFE-7200'' to 1-
ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane
(C4F9OC2H5).
DATES: This rule is effective December 29, 2004.
ADDRESSES:
A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. The EPA has established a public docket for this action,
OAR-2003-0086, which consists of the documents specifically referenced
in this action, any public comments received, and other information
related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
public docket is the collection of materials that is available for
public viewing at the Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 pm.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number
for the Docket is (202) 566 . A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listing at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. Once in the system, select
``search'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sanders, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division
(C539-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone (919) 541-3356.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially affected by this action are those that use and
emit VOC as well as States that have programs to control VOC emissions.
This action has no substantial direct effects on the States or industry
because it does not impose any new mandates on these entities but, to
the contrary, removes four chemical compounds from regulation as a VOC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... Industries that use or make refrigerants,
blowing agents, fire suppressants, or
solvents.
States....................... States which have regulations to control
volatile organic compounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This matrix lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table have the potential of being affected.
The four compounds we are excluding from the definition of VOC all
have potential for use as refrigerants, fire suppressants, aerosol
propellants, or blowing agents (used in the manufacture of foamed
plastic). In addition, all of these compounds, may be used as an
alternative to ozone-depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
Three of the compounds, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-
propane, 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane, and methyl formate are
approved by EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program
(CAA section 612; 40 CFR part 82, subpart G) as acceptable substitutes
for ozone-depleting compounds. The fourth compound, 3-ethoxy-
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane, has
not been reviewed under SNAP because it was submitted for use in
secondary loop refrigeration systems. Fluids used in these systems are
not covered by the SNAP program (62 FR 10700 March 10, 1997). However,
this compound is a member of a larger class of compounds known as
hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), and other HFEs have been recognized by SNAP
as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.
Also, we are making a nomenclature clarification to two previously
exempted compounds. We have added the designations ``HFE-7100'' to
1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane
(C4F9OCH3) and ``HFE-7200'' to 1-
ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane
(C4F9OC2H5). These names
are widely accepted alternative designations for the two compounds and
can be found in the book titled, Handbook for Critical Cleaning by
Barbara Kanegsberg and Edward Kanegsberg, CRC Press, 2001, p. 77.
The EPA is now in the process of assessing its VOC policy in
general. As part of this process, we intend to publish a future notice
inviting public comment on the VOC exemption policy and the concept of
negligible reactivity as part of a broader review of overall policy.
One of the issues we will address in this notice is the extent to which
compounds that are exempt from the VOC definition should still be
subject to recordkeeping, emissions reporting, and inventory
requirements which apply to VOC. The Agency wants to investigate
whether substantial emissions of ``negligibly reactive'' compounds may
contribute to ozone formation under certain conditions. This effort
will require additional
[[Page 69292]]
modeling, and it may be necessary to have a more accurate inventory of
such compounds in order to obtain accurate modeling results. However,
instead of addressing this issue in this rule, which applies to only
four compounds, we intend to address it more broadly in our upcoming
notice dealing with our overall VOC policy.
To determine whether your organization is affected by this action,
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 51.100
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Outline
I. Background
A. Reactivity Policy
B. Current Exemption Petitions
1. 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane and 3-ethoxy-
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane
2. 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane
3. Methyl Formate
II. The EPA Response to the Petitions
III. The EPA Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. Reactivity Policy
Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOCs and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere. Because of
the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and State governments limit
the amount of VOCs and NOX that can be released into the
atmosphere. Volatile organic compounds are those compounds of carbon
(excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) which form ozone
through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Compounds of carbon (also
known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity--that
is, they do not react to form ozone at the same speed or do not form
ozone to the same extent. It has been EPA's policy that organic
compounds with a negligible level of reactivity need not be regulated
to reduce ozone. The EPA determines whether a given organic compound
has ``negligible'' reactivity by comparing the compound's reactivity to
the reactivity of ethane. The EPA lists these compounds in its
regulations (at 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and excludes them from the definition
of VOCs. The chemicals on this list are often called ``negligibly
reactive'' organic compounds.
In 1977, EPA published the ``Recommended Policy on Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds'' (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977) which
established the basic policy that EPA has used regarding organic
chemical photochemical reactivity since that time. In that statement,
EPA identified the following four compounds as being of negligible
photochemical reactivity and said these should be exempt from
regulation as VOCs under SIPs: methane; ethane; 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(methyl chloroform); 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113).
That policy statement said that as new information becomes available,
EPA may periodically revise the list of negligibly reactive compounds
to add compounds to or delete them from the list.
The EPA's decision to exempt certain organic compounds in its 1977
policy was heavily influenced by experimental smog chamber experiments
performed by EPA's Office of Research and Development earlier in the
1970's. In this experimental work, various compounds were injected into
a smog chamber at a molar concentration that was typical of the total
molar concentration of VOC in Los Angeles ambient air (4 parts per
million by volume (ppmV)). As the compound was allowed to react with
NOX at concentrations of 0.2 parts per million (ppm), the
maximum ozone formed in the chamber was measured. If the compound in
the smog chamber did not result in ozone formation of 0.08 ppm (0.08
ppm was the NAAQS for oxidants at that time), it was assumed that
emissions of the compound would not cause an exceedance of the NAAQS.
Following this reasoning, EPA concluded that the compound was
negligibly reactive. Ethane was the most reactive compound tested that
did not cause the 0.08 ozone level in the smog chamber to be met or
exceeded. Based on those findings and judgments, EPA therefore
designated ethane as negligibly reactive, and ethane became the
benchmark VOC species for separating reactive from negligibly reactive
compounds under the assumed conditions.
Since 1977, EPA's primary method for comparing the reactivity of a
specific compound to that of ethane has been to compare the
kOH values for ethane and the specific compound of interest.
The kOH value represents the molar rate constant for
reactions between the subject compound (e.g., ethane) and the hydroxyl
radical (i.e., OH). This reaction is very important since it is
the primary pathway by which most organic compounds initially
participate in atmospheric photochemical reaction processes to form
ozone. The EPA has exempted 45 compounds or classes of compounds based
on a comparison of kOH values since 1977.
In 1994, in response to a petition to exempt volatile methyl
siloxanes, EPA, used another type of comparison to ethane based on
incremental reactivity (IR) metrics (59 FR 50693, October 5, 1994). The
use of IR metrics allowed EPA to take into consideration the ozone
forming potential of other reactions of the compound in addition to the
initial reaction with the hydroxyl radical. Volatile methyl siloxanes
proved to be less reactive than ethane on a per mole basis. In 1995,
EPA considered another compound, acetone, using IR metrics. Because
acetone breaks down to form ozone by the process of photolysis rather
than by the normal OH reaction scheme, EPA considered the IR metrics
instead of kOH values, and exempted acetone based on the
fact that acetone was less reactive than ethane on the basis of grams
of ozone formed per grams of VOC emitted (60 FR 31635, June 16, 1995).
Prior to 1994, EPA had only granted VOC exemptions based on
kOH values. Since 1995, EPA has exempted one additional
compound, methyl acetate, reinforced by comparisons of IR metrics.
Besides a lower kOH value than ethane, EPA found that the
reactivity of methyl acetate was comparable to or less than that for
ethane, under a per mole basis.
B. Current Exemption Petitions
1. 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoro-3-Methoxy-Propane and 3-Ethoxy-
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-Dodecafluoro-2-(Trifluoromethyl) Hexane
On February 5, 1999, the Performance Chemicals and Fluid Division
of the 3M Company submitted to EPA a petition requesting that the
compound 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane be added to the
list of compounds which are negligibly reactive and therefore exempt
from the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
[[Page 69293]]
The next year, on August 21, 2000, the Performance Chemicals and Fluid
Division of the 3M Company submitted to EPA a petition requesting that
the compound 3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-
(trifluoromethyl) hexane be added to the same list.
Potential uses for these two compounds (and other compounds for
consideration under this proposal) are shown in Table 1. In its first
petition, 3M points out that it has requested the compound
1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane be listed as an acceptable
substitute for CFCs and HCFCs in certain uses and; as such, use of this
substance may help mitigate the depletion of stratospheric ozone.
Table 1.--Potential Uses of Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound Potential use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,1,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoro-3-methoxy- Refrigerant; aerosol
propane. propellant.
3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6- Refrigerant.
dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)
hexane.
1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane....... Fire suppressant; aerosol
propellant.
Methyl formate......................... Blowing agent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although 3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-
(trifluoromethyl) hexane has not been identified as a CFC substitute,
specifically, the SNAP program has identified hydrofluoroethers (HFEs),
as a class, as replacement substitutes for CFCs.
In support of the 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane and
the 3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)
hexane petitions, 3M Company supplied information on the photochemical
reactivities of the compounds. The 3M Company stated that, as
hydrofluoroethers, these compounds are very similar in structure,
toxicity, and atmospheric properties to other compounds such as
C4F9OCH3,
(CH3)2CFCF2OCH3,
C4F9OC2H5, and
(CH3)2CFCF2OC2H5
which are exempt already from the VOC definition.
Other information submitted by 3M Company consists mainly of a
peer-reviewed article entitled ``Atmospheric Chemistry of Some
Fluoroethers,'' Guschin, Molina, Molina: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, May 1998. This article discusses a study in which the rate
constant for the reaction of HFE-7000 (and several other individual
compounds) with the hydroxyl (OH) radical is shown to be less than the
rate constant for ethane but slightly more than the rate constant for
methane on a mole basis. This rate constant (kOH value) is
commonly used as one measure of the photochemical reactivity of
compounds. The petitioner compared the rate constants with that of
ethane which has already been listed as photochemically negligibly
reactive (ethane is the compound with the highest kOH value
which is currently regarded as negligibly reactive). The two compounds
under consideration for exemption are listed with their reported
kOH rate constants in Table 2 along with ethane (and
compounds for consideration under this proposal). 3M Company has also
included Material Safety Data Sheets, together with 5-day and 28-day
inhalation toxicity studies, indicating both their compounds as having
very low toxicity. The scientific information which the petitioner has
submitted in support of the petition has been added to the docket for
this rulemaking. This information includes references for the journal
articles where the rate constant values are published.
Table 2.--Reaction Rate Constants (at 25[deg]C) With OH Radical
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound cm3/molecule/sec (kOH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane.................................... 2.4 x 10 13
n-C3F7OCH3................................ 1.2 x 10 14
HFE-7500.................................. 2.2 x 10 14
HFC-227ea................................. 1.09 x 10 15
Methyl formate............................ 2.27 x 10 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane
On February 18, 1998, the Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (``Great
Lakes'') petitioned EPA for the exemption of 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropane (HCF-227ea) from the definition of VOC. The rate
constant for the reaction of HFC-227ea with the OH radical was based on
studies performed at the laboratories of Aerodyne Research, Inc. and
reported by Nelson, Zahniser, and Kolb in the Geophysical Research
Letters., Vol. 20, No. 2, pages 197-200. The rate constant for HFC-
227ea as reported in this paper (Table 2) is 1.09 x 10-15
cm3/molecule/sec at 277K (0[deg]C) which places it well
under two orders of magnitude below ethane's reactivity.
Great Lakes also claims that HFC-227ea is not an ozone-depleting
substance. The EPA has approved this compound already under the SNAP
program as an acceptable substitute for Halon 1301 and Halon 1211 in
various fire suppression applications. Also, EPA has determined HFC-
227ea to have a GWP at 3800 times that of carbon dioxide, making it a
probable substitute for its competitor fire suppressants which have
even higher GWPs. The GWP is a number that refers to the amount of
global warming caused by a substance. The GWP is the ratio of the
warming caused by a substance to the warming caused by a similar mass
of carbon dioxide. Thus, the GWP of CO2 is defined to be
1.0. CFC-12 has a GWP of 8,500, while CFC-11 has a GWP of 5,000.
Various HCFCs and HFCs have GWPs ranging from 93 to 12,100. Water, a
substitute in numerous end-uses, has a GWP of 0.
3. Methyl Formate
On February 12, 2002, Foam Supplies, Inc. submitted a petition to
exclude methyl formate from the definition of VOC. Also submitted were
journal articles detailing three separate studies with hydroxyl
radicals in which methyl formate's rate constants are measured against
that of ethane on a mole basis (cm3/molecule/sec). Of the three
studies, the highest value tested for methyl formate was that of 2.27 x
10-13 cm3/molecule/sec which is slightly below
that for ethane at 2.4 x 10-13 cm3/molecule/sec
(shown in Table 2).
Foam Supplies, Inc. also notes that methyl formate has a zero ODP
and a very low or zero GWP. In addition, Foam Supplies, Inc. notes that
EPA has approved this compound under SNAP as an acceptable alternative
to HCFC-141b and HCFC-22 in various blowing agent applications.
Because of the closeness in rate constant values attributed to
methyl formate and ethane, in addition to the information on
kOH value submitted by the petitioner, EPA has examined
further evidence of low reactivity for methyl formate. This evidence,
which is desirable when rate constant values are so close (as in the
case of methyl formate and ethane), increases the confidence level with
which EPA can
[[Page 69294]]
make a final decision on whether to approve or disapprove of a petition
to exempt a compound from the VOC definition. Dr. William P. L. Carter
of the University of California at Riverside has published ``The SAPRC-
99 Chemical Mechanism and Updated VOC Reactivity Scales,''(revised 11/
29/2000) on his Web site at: http://ftp.cert.ucr.edu/pub/carter/SAPRC99/appndxc.doc. Appendix C of his report gives maximum incremental
reactivity (MIR) values which are another accepted measure of
photochemical reactivity. Dr. Carter's MIR values are calculated in
grams ozone per gram of organic compound. These same MIR values can be
calculated on the basis of grams of ozone per mole of organic compound
as discussed in the above section concerning differences between gram-
basis and mole-basis reactivity rates. Methyl formate has negligible
reactivity rates at less than half that of ethane. Sections of the
Carter report showing ethane and methyl formate values have been added
to the docket. Also, this same data may be seen on Dr. Carter's website
as stated above.
While the purpose of exempting negligibly reactive VOCs is to avoid
unnecessary regulation that will not help in the attainment of the
ozone NAAQS, it is possible that exempting specific compounds from
regulation as a VOC could result in significant health risks or other
undesirable environmental impacts. The EPA has included available
information about the toxicity of the four compounds under
consideration in the docket. Also, EPA invited public comment, during
the comment period, on the potential for significant health or
environmental risks that may be expected as a result of the proposed
exemptions, taking into account the expected uses for the compounds.
II. The EPA Response to the Petitions
For the petitions submitted by the 3M Company, Great Lakes Chemical
Corporation, and Foam Supplies, Inc., the data submitted by the
petitioners support the contention that the reactivities of the
compounds submitted, with respect to reaction with OH radicals in the
atmosphere, are lower than that of ethane. There is ample evidence in
the literature that methyl formate and the halogenated paraffinic VOC,
listed above, do not participate in such reactions significantly.
The EPA is responding to the petitions by adding the compounds in
Table 3 to the list of compounds exempt from the definition of VOC
appearing in 40 CFR 51.100(s). Also, EPA is adding the following
nomenclature designations ``HFE-7100'' to 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-
4-methoxy-butane (C4F9OCH3) and ``HFE-
7200'' to 1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane
(C4F9OC2H5).
Table 3.--Compounds To Be Added to the List of Negligibly-Reactive
Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound Chemical name or formula
------------------------------------------------------------------------
n-C3F7OCH3............................. 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoro-3-
methoxy-propane.
HFE-7500............................... 3-Ethoxy-
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-
dodecafluoro-2-
(trifluoromethyl) hexane.
HFC-227ea.............................. 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-
Heptafluoropropane.
Methyl formate......................... HCOOCH3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The EPA Response to Comments
In the proposal for the exemption of 4 compounds, EPA indicated
that interested persons could request that EPA hold a public hearing on
the proposed action (see section 307(d)(5)(ii) of the CAA). EPA
received no requests for a public hearing.
The EPA also provided for a public comment period in the proposal.
The EPA received 13 comments on the proposal. The comments fell into
three general categories: (1) Comments in favor of the exemptions, (2)
comments of concern about toxicity and stratospheric ozone depletion,
and (3) comments that object to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. All comment letters are in the docket for this action. In
today's final action, we have summarized what EPA views as the
significant comments and provided the Agency's responses. We provide no
responses to favorable comments because they referred to industry's
desire for suitable negligibly-reactive compounds that would serve as
substitutes for higher-reacting ozone precursor compounds.
While EPA concurs that encouraging use of lower reactivity
compounds is the policy basis for the VOC exemption approach, today's
action focuses on the technical basis and appropriateness of exempting
these four specific compounds.
Comment(s) With Respect to Toxicity and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Comment: One comment asserted that EPA should not encourage the
production of any chemical that will enlarge the hole in the
stratosphere above the Antarctic or (in the same letter with reference
to methyl formate) have properties that make it toxic, flammable, or
cause pulmonary damage.
Response: Section 612 of 40 CFR part 82 subpart G of the EPA SNAP
rule, requires EPA to establish a method to identify alternatives to
Class I (CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methylchoroform, methyl
bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbons) and Class II (HCFCs) ozone-
depleting substances and to publish lists of acceptable and
unacceptable substitutes. Pursuant to SNAP's rule, it is illegal to
replace a Class I or Class II substance with any substitute which the
Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or
the environment where other substitutes have been identified that
reduce overall risk and are currently or potentially available. In
addition, all of the compounds affected by this action, may be used as
an alternative to ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs and HCFCs.
Three of the compounds, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-
propane, 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane, and methyl formate are
already approved by the SNAP program as acceptable substitutes for
ozone-depleting compounds. The fourth compound, 3-ethoxy-
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane, has
not been reviewed by EPA under SNAP because it was submitted for use in
secondary loop refrigeration systems. Fluids used in these systems are
not covered by the SNAP program (62 FR 10700, March 10, 1997). However,
this fourth compound is a member of a larger class of compounds known
as HFEs, and other HFEs have been recognized by SNAP as ODS
substitutes.
The EPA uses the SNAP program to identify substitutes for ozone-
depleting compounds, to evaluate the acceptability of these
substitutes, to
[[Page 69295]]
promote the use of those substitutes EPA determines to present lower
overall risks to human health and the environment (relative to the
Class I and Class II compounds being replaced, as well as to other
substitutes for the same end-use), and to prohibit the use of those
substitutes found, based on the same comparisons, to increase overall
risks. EPA's SNAP program has identified the HFCs as a class of
replacement substitutes for CFCs. Because they do not contain chlorine
or bromine, they do not deplete the ozone layer. All HFCs have an ozone
depletion potential (ODP) of 0 although some HFCs have high global
warming potential (GWP).
In its VOC exemption petition, 3M points out that it has requested
EPA list the compound 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane as an
acceptable substitute for CFCs and HCFCs in certain uses and; as such,
use of this substance may mitigate depletion of stratospheric ozone.
Although 3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-
(trifluoromethyl)hexane has not been identified as a substitute,
specifically, the SNAP program has identified HFEs, as a class, as
replacement substitutes for CFCs.
Great Lakes also claims in its VOC exemption petition that HFC-
227ea is not an ozone-depleting substance. EPA has approved this
compound under the SNAP program as an acceptable substitute for Halon
1301 and Halon 1211 in various fire suppression applications. As stated
in the background section above, EPA has determined HFC-227ea to have a
GWP at 3800 times that of carbon dioxide, making it a probable
substitute for its competitor fire suppressants which have even higher
GWPs.
In approving methyl formate as an acceptable substitute for CFC's
and HCFC's, EPA's SNAP Program noted that methyl formate is toxic and
flammable and should be handled by users with proper precautions.
Methyl formate causes irritation to the eyes, skin, and lungs, and at
high levels may cause pulmonary damage. However, EPA believes that use
of methyl formate is well regulated by other programs; therefore,
exposures to this compound will be below levels of concern. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established an
enforceable occupational exposure limit of 100 ppm as an 8-hour time-
weighted average. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) has also established a short-term exposure limit
(averaged over 15 minutes) of 150 ppm. There is only one supplier of
methyl formate in the U.S., and its total production is less than 10
million pounds per year. We estimate that use of methyl formate as an
HCFC replacement in the foam sector will be relatively small, reaching
2.5 million pounds between years 2008 and 2010. Although we do not have
information on all the possible exposure scenarios for methyl formate,
based on information provided by industry, the air concentration levels
reached in testing methyl formate as a foam blowing agent have been
less than 10 ppm (without ventilation), a concentration well below the
occupational exposure limits set by other agencies.
Comment(s) With Respect to Recordkeeping and Reporting
Comment: The EPA received a number of comments opposing the
implementation of recordkeeping and reporting requirements. According
to the commenters, this requirement would cause some inequity in
marketability and in cost-burden for their chemicals, resulting in a
competitive advantage to companies producing the chemicals that EPA had
previously exempted. Client companies and States' environmental
agencies would bear the burden of additional recordkeeping and
reporting costs. Could the same information be gotten from
manufacturers? Could EPA employ purchase and use records as
inventories? Also, there is concern that EPA will impose daily
recordkeeping and reporting in order to follow multi-day ozone events
and ozone transport phenomena. Another point for discussion questions
how adequate atmospheric modeling can be done without data to represent
the total of over forty compounds that have been exempted already. Can
EPA find an optional method to atmospheric modeling? The EPA may be
wiser to defer recordkeeping and reporting considerations until after
development of the forthcoming reactivity policy reassessment.
Response: The EPA agrees that it would be more appropriate to
address this issue as part of the reassessment of our overall
reactivity policy. We have therefore decided not to include
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in today's rule.
We recognize that most organic compounds that EPA has exempted as
``negligibly reactive'' do have some photochemical reactivity, albeit
small. At some future point during the reassessment of our reactivity
policy, in order to develop an accurate assessment of the atmospheric
chemistry, EPA may need to begin incorporating at least some of the
widely used exempt VOCs into a model that determines a significant, or
insignificant, or possibly even a beneficial environmental impact. An
assessment toward this end has begun already under the aegis of an
ongoing Reactivity Research Working Group (RRWG) investigation of the
current scientific findings.
This type of modeling effort may require better speciated
inventories of organic compounds, including compounds that we have
exempted from the VOC definition. Thus, it may be necessary to develop
some sort of system for gathering more accurate information about these
compounds--at least those that are widely used. (In this regard, we
note that the four compounds we are excluding from the VOC definition
today are expected to be used in relatively small amounts.) Rather than
addressing this issue in today's rule, which applies to only four
compounds, we intend to address it more broadly in our upcoming notice
dealing with our overall VOC policy.
Again, with this action, the EPA is not finalizing a decision on
how future petitions will be evaluated. As noted above, the Agency is
currently in the process of assessing its overall policy toward
regulating VOCs with the inclusion of multi-day ozone and ozone
transport events, as well as toxicity and stratospheric ozone depletion
and global warming potential concerns. We intend to publish in the near
future a notice inviting public comment on the VOC exemption policy and
the concept of negligible reactivity as part of a broader review of
overall policy.
IV. Final Action
Today's final action is based on EPA's review of the material in
Docket No. OAR-2003-0086. The EPA hereby amends its definition of VOC
at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude the compounds in Table 3 from the term
``VOC'' for ozone SIP and ozone control purposes. States are not
obligated to exclude from control as a VOC those compounds that EPA has
found to be negligibly reactive. However, as this action is made final,
States may not include reductions in emissions of these compounds in
their calculations for determining reasonable further progress under
the CAA (e.g., section 182(b)(1)) and may not take credit for
controlling these compounds in their ozone control strategy.
[[Page 69296]]
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of this 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 obligation 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 Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not ``significant'' because none of the
listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action is not
submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain any information collection
requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. It does not contain any recordkeeping or
reporting requirement burden.
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.
An Agency does not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq. requires the identification of potentially adverse impacts
of Federal regulations upon small business entities. The Act
specifically requires the completion of a RFA analysis in those
instances where the regulation would impose a substantial impact on a
significant number of small entities. Because this rulemaking imposes
no adverse economic impacts, an analysis has not been conducted.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
will not impose any requirements on small entities. Today's rule
concerns only the definition of VOC and does not directly regulate any
entities. The RFA analysis does not consider impacts on entities which
the action in question does not regulate. See Motor & Equipment
Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F. 3d 449, 467 (D.C. Cir. 1998);
United Distribution Cos. v. FERC, 88 F. 3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996),
cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1224 (1997). Pursuant to the provision of 5
U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that the rule will not have an impact
on small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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, 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
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 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 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 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Since this rule is deregulatory in nature and does not impose a
mandate upon any source, this rule is not estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments or the private
sector of $100 million in any 1 year. Therefore, the Agency has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a
plan with regard to small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include
[[Page 69297]]
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
This action addressing the exemption of four chemical compounds
from the VOC definition does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action does not impose any
new mandates on State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on
the proposed rule for this final rule from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Today's action does not have any direct effects on Indian Tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and Tribal governments, EPA solicited
comment on the proposed rule for this final rule from Tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
While this rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, EPA
has reason to believe that ozone has a disproportionate effect on
active children who play outdoors (62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997).
The EPA has not identified any specific studies on whether or to what
extent the four above listed chemical compounds affect children's
health. The EPA has placed the available data regarding the health
effects of these four chemical compounds in docket no. OAR-2003-0086.
The EPA invites the public to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies
and data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assess results of early
life exposure to any of the four above listed chemical compounds.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective upon publication in the Federal
Register. This final rule is a deregulatory action and, therefore, does
not result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Also, this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The deregulatory
nature of this final rule will result in a cost benefit for industries
using or manufacturing these chemical compounds.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 18, 2004.
Michael Leavitt,
Administrator.
0
For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 69298]]
Authority: 23 U.S.C.; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7641q.
0
2. Section 51.100 is amended by revising paragraph (s)(1) as follows:
Subpart F--[Amended]
Sec. 51.100 Definitions.
* * * * *
(s) * * *
(1) This includes any such organic compound other than the
following, which have been determined to have negligible photochemical
reactivity: methane; ethane; methylene chloride (dichloromethane);
1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane (CFC-113); trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11);
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12); chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22);
trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 1,2-dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-
114); chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115); 1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-
dichloroethane (HCFC-123); 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 1,1-
dichloro 1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b); 1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-
142b); 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane
(HFC-125); 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 1,1,1-trifluoroethane
(HFC-143a); 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a); parachlorobenzotrifluoride
(PCBTF); cyclic, branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes;
acetone; perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene); 3,3-dichloro-
1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca); 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-
pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb); 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluoropentane
(HFC 43-10mee); difluoromethane (HFC-32); ethylfluoride (HFC-161);
1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa); 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane
(HFC-245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea); 1,1,1,2,3-
pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-
245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea); 1,1,1,3,3-
pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc); chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31); 1
chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a); 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane
(HCFC-123a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane
(C4F9OCH3 or HFE-7100); 2-
(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
((CF3)2CFCF2OCH3); 1-
ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane
(C4F9OC2H5 or HFE-7200); 2-
(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
((CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5
); methyl acetate, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane (n-
C3F7OCH3, HFE-7000), 3-ethoxy-
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane (HFE-
7500), 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane (HFC 227ea), and methyl formate
(HCOOCH3), and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:
(i) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes;
(ii) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers
with no unsaturations;
(iii) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary
amines with no unsaturations; and
(iv) Sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and
with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-26070 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P