[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 189 (Monday, October 1, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55717-55723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19324]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948; FRL-8475-7]
RIN 2060-AN75
Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds--Exclusion of Compounds
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise EPA's definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for
purposes of preparing State implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the
national ambient air quality standard for ozone under Title I of the
Clean Air Act (Act). This proposed revision would add 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. The compounds under consideration are propylene carbonate
and dimethyl carbonate. The EPA is inviting comment on an alternative
evaluation criteria for exempting one of these compounds (propylene
carbonate), methods for tracking changes in the use and emissions of
both of these compounds and their potential substitutes, and the
potential for health risks that may result from this action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2007.
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing on or before October 16, 2007, we will hold a public
hearing. Additional
[[Page 55718]]
information about the hearing would be published in a subsequent
Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0948, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: 202-566-9744.
Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Northwest, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room: 3334,
Mail Code: 2822T, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0948. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0948. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0948, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
Northwest, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 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 ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948 is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Johnson, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards
Division, Mail code C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone (919) 541-5245.; fax number: 919-541-0824; e-mail address:
[email protected].
Public Hearing: To request a public hearing or information
pertaining to a public hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela S.
Long, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C504-03, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone (919) 541-0641, facsimile number (919) 541-5509, electronic
e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
You may be an entity potentially affected by this proposed policy
change if you use or emit propylene carbonate or dimethyl carbonate.
States which have programs to control VOC emissions will also be
affected by this proposed change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................... Industries that make and use
coatings, adhesives, inks or
which perform paint stripping
or pesticide application.
States................................. States that control VOC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware of that could potentially be affected by this action. Other types
of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. 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. This proposed action has no substantial
direct effects on industry because it does not impose any new mandates
on these entities, but, to the contrary, removes two chemical compounds
from the regulatory definition of VOC, and therefore from regulation
for Federal purposes.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
[[Page 55719]]
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Public Hearing?
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony should contact Ms.
Pamela S. Long, New Source Review Group, Air Quality Policy Division
(C504-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0641, at least 2 days in
advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the
public hearing should also contact Ms. Long to verify the time, date,
and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning
these proposed changes.
D. How Is This Preamble Organized?
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
Outline
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
C. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Public Hearing?
D. How Is This Preamble Organized?
II. Background
A. Propylene Carbonate
B. Dimethyl Carbonate
III. Proposed Action
IV. 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. Executive Order 12848: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
II. Background
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. The VOCs are those organic compounds of carbon which form
ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Different VOCs 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. Some
VOCs react slowly, and changes in their emissions have limited effects
on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been EPA's policy
that organic compounds with a negligible level of reactivity should be
excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC, so as to focus VOC
control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase ozone
concentrations. The EPA also believes that exempting such compounds
creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds
in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs.
The EPA lists these negligibly reactive compounds in its regulations
(at 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and excludes them from the definition of VOCs.
Since 1977, EPA has used the reactivity of ethane as the threshold
for determining negligible reactivity. Compounds that are less reactive
than, or equally reactive to, ethane under the assumed conditions may
be deemed negligibly reactive. Compounds that are more reactive than
ethane continue to be considered reactive VOCs and therefore subject to
control requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound
was based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the
1977 policy.
In the past, EPA has considered three different metrics to compare
the reactivity of a specific compound to that of ethane: (i) The
reaction rate constant with the hydroxyl radical (known as
kOH), (ii) maximum incremental reactivities (MIR) expressed
on a reactivity per gram basis, and (iii) MIR expressed on a reactivity
per mole basis. Table 1 presents these three reactivity metrics for
ethane and for the two compounds discussed in this proposed rule.
Differences between these three metrics are discussed below.
Table 1.--Reactivities of Ethane and Compounds Considered for Exemption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kOH (cm\3\/molecule- MIR (g O3/mole MIR (g O3/gram
Compound sec) VOC) VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane........................................... 2.4 x 10-\13\ 9.3 0.31
Propylene carbonate.............................. 6.9 x 10-\13\ 25.5 0.25
Dimethyl carbonate............................... 3.49 x 10-\13\ 5.31 0.059
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. kOH value for ethane is from: R. Atkinson.,
D. L. Baulch, R. A. Cox, J. N. Crowley, R. F. Hampson, Jr., R. G.
Hynes, M. E. Jenkin, J. A. Kerr, M. J. Rossi and J. Troe (2004),
Summary of Evaluated Kinetic and Photochemical Data for Atmospheric
Chemistry. Web version, 2005 http://www.ibiblio.org/iupac-ki/summary/IUPACsumm_web_March2005.pdf.
2. kOH value for propylene carbonate is reported in:
W.P.L. Carter, D. Luo, I.L. Malkina, E.C. Tuazon, S.M. Aschmann, and
R. Atkinson (July 8, 1996), ``Investigation of the Atmospheric Ozone
Formation Potential of t-butyl Alcohol, N-Methyl Pyrrolidinone and
Propylene Carbonate.'' University of California--Riverside. ftp://ftp.cert.ucr.edu/pub/carter/pubs/arcorpt.pdf.
3. kOH value for dimethyl carbonate is reported in:
Y. Katrib, G. Deiber, P. Mirabel, S. LeCalve, C. George, A.
Mellouki, and G. Le Bras (2002), ``Atmospheric loss processes of
dimethyl and diethyl carbonate,'' J. Atmos. Chem., 43: 151-174.
4. All maximum incremental reactivities or MIR (g O3/
g VOC) values are from: W. P. L. Carter, ``Latest VOC Reactivity
tabulations for SAPRC-99 Mechanism'' (updated 2/5/03) ftp://ftp.cert.ucr.edu/pub/carter/SAPRC99/r02tab.xls.
5. MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were calculated from
the MIR (g O3/g VOC) values by determining the number of
moles per gram of the relevant organic compound.
The kOH is the reaction rate constant of the compound
with the OH radical in the air. This reaction is typically the first
step in a series of chemical reactions by which a compound breaks down
in the air and participates in the ozone forming process. If this step
is slow, the compound will likely not form ozone at a very fast rate.
The kOH values have long been used by EPA as a measure of
photochemical reactivity and ozone forming activity, and they have been
the basis for most of EPA's
[[Page 55720]]
previous exclusions of negligibly reactive compounds. The kOH
metric is inherently molar, i.e., it measures the rate at which
molecules react.
The MIR values, both by mole and by mass, are more recently
developed measures of photochemical reactivity derived from a computer-
based photochemical model. These measures consider the complete ozone
forming activity of a compound, not merely the first reaction step.
Further explanation of the MIR metric can be found in: W. P. L. Carter,
``Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic
Compositions,'' Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol.
44, 881-899, July 1994.
The MIR values are usually expressed either as grams of ozone
formed per mole of VOC (molar basis) or as grams of ozone formed per
gram of VOC (mass basis). For comparing the reactivities of two
compounds, using the molar MIR values considers an equal number of
molecules of the two compounds. Alternatively, using the mass MIR
values compares an equal mass of the two compounds, which will involve
different numbers of molecules, depending on the relative molecular
weights. The molar MIR comparison is consistent with the original smog
chamber experiments, which compared equal molar concentrations of
individual VOCs, that underlie the original selection of ethane as the
threshold compound. It is also consistent with previous reactivity
determinations based on inherently molar kOH values. The
mass MIR comparison is consistent with how MIR values and other
reactivity metrics are applied in reactivity-based emission limits,
specifically the California Air Resources Board rule for aerosol spray
paints (see http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/regs/apt.pdf ).
The choice of molar basis versus mass basis is significant. Given
the relatively low molecular weight of ethane, use of the mass basis
tends to result in more VOCs falling into the ``negligibly reactive''
class versus the molar basis. This means that, in some cases, a
compound might be considered less reactive than ethane and eligible for
VOC exemption under the mass basis but not under the molar basis. One
of the compounds considered in this proposal falls into this situation,
where the molar MIR value is greater than that of ethane, but the mass
MIR value is less than that of ethane. This compound is propylene
carbonate.
The EPA has considered the choice between a molar or mass basis for
the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. The design
of the VOC exemption policy, including the choice between a mass and
mole basis, has been critiqued in the published literature.\1\ Most
recently, in ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' published on September
13, 2005 (70 FR 54046), EPA stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Basil Dimitriades, ``Scientific Basis of an Improved EPA
Policy on Control of Organic Emissions for Ambient Ozone
Reduction.'' Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
49:831-838, July 1999.
`` * * * a comparison to ethane on a mass basis strikes the
right balance between a threshold that is low enough to capture
compounds that significantly affect ozone concentrations and a
threshold that is high enough to exempt some compounds that may
usefully substitute for more highly reactive compounds. * * * When
reviewing compounds that have been suggested for VOC exempt status,
EPA will continue to compare them to ethane using kOH
expressed on a molar basis and MIR values expressed on a mass
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
basis.''
Relying on a comparison of mass MIR values consistent with this
guidance, EPA is proposing to revise its definition of VOC at 40 CFR
51.100(s) to add propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate to the list
of compounds that are exempt because they are negligibly reactive
because they are equal to or less reactive than ethane on a mass basis.
For the first of these compounds, EPA is inviting comment on the
alternative use of a molar basis for the comparison of these compounds
to ethane.
EPA has become aware of revised MIR values posted by Dr. W.P.L.
Carter on his Web site \2\ as part of a report for the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) which indicate changes in the reactivity values
of the two compounds being proposed for exemption as well as for that
of ethane. In particular, the new data indicate that propylene
carbonate has an MIR value that is essentially equal to that of ethane
on a gram basis. These new MIR values are shown in Table 2 below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These new MIR values may be found at http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/carter/SAPRC/scales07.xls.
Table 2.--2007 Revised MIR Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound MIR (g O3/gram VOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane............................................. 0.26
Propylene carbonate................................ 0.26
Dimethyl carbonate................................. 0.055
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA understands that these numbers were produced by Carter under a
contract with the CARB and are reported in the August 31, 2007 report
``Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone
Reactivity Scales.'' CARB will consider this report as part of their
investigation of whether MIR values in CARB regulations need to be
revised. EPA is not relying on these new MIR values for this proposal,
but we do not think the new MIR values would prohibit us from
proceeding with the exemptions because the two compounds being proposed
for exemption would still be equal to or less than ethane in
reactivity. We invite comments on the whether EPA should use this new
data for the VOC exemptions being considered in this notice.
The technical rationale for recommending an exemption for each of
the individual compounds is given below:
A. Propylene Carbonate
Huntsman Corporation submitted a petition to EPA on July 27, 1999,
requesting that propylene carbonate be exempted from VOC control based
on its low reactivity relative to ethane.
Propylene carbonate (CAS registry number 108-32-7) is an odorless
non-viscous clear liquid with a low vapor pressure (0.023 mmHg at 20
[deg]C) and low evaporation rate compared to many other commonly used
organic solvents. It has been used in cosmetics, as an adhesive
component in food packaging, as a solvent for plasticizers and
synthetic fibers and polymers, and as a solvent for aerial pesticide
application.
Huntsman submitted several pieces of information to support its
petition, all of which have been added to the docket for this action.
One of these pieces of information was ``Investigation of the
Atmospheric Ozone Formation Potential of t-butyl Alcohol, N-Methyl
Pyrrolidinone and Propylene Carbonate'' by William P.L. Carter, Dongmin
Luo, Irina L. Malkina, Ernesto C. Tuazon, Sara M. Aschmann, and Roger
Atkinson, University of California at Riverside, July 8, 1996. Table 8
of that reference lists the MIR for propylene carbonate (on a gram
basis) as 1.43 times higher than that of ethane. However, in Table 1
above, EPA has shown a 2003 MIR value that was taken from more recent
2003 data from Dr. Carter's Web site. This 2003 MIR value is lower than
that of ethane on a mass basis.
From the data in Table 1, it can be seen that propylene carbonate
has a higher kOH value than ethane, meaning that it
initially reacts more quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. A molecule
of propylene carbonate is also more reactive than a molecule of ethane,
as shown by the molar MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values, since
equal numbers of
[[Page 55721]]
moles have equal numbers of molecules. However, a gram of propylene
carbonate is less reactive, or creates less ozone on the day of its
emission to the atmosphere, than a gram of ethane. This is because
propylene carbonate has a molecular weight (102), which is over three
times that of ethane (30), thus requiring less than a third the number
of molecules of propylene carbonate to weigh a gram than the number of
molecules of ethane needed to weigh a gram.
Based on the mass MIR (g O3/g VOC) value for propylene
carbonate being equal to or less than that of ethane, EPA is proposing
to find that propylene carbonate is ``negligibly reactive'' and
therefore exempt for the regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR
51.100(s). EPA is inviting comment on whether the comparison of
propylene carbonate to ethane should instead be made on the basis of
the molar MIR (g O3/mole VOC) value. In that case, the
petition to grant propylene carbonate a status of ``negligibly
reactive'' would be denied.
B. Dimethyl Carbonate
The EPA received a petition from Kowa America Corporation on July
29, 2004 seeking an exemption from the regulatory definition of VOC for
dimethyl carbonate. This petition asserted that dimethyl carbonate
(DMC) is less photochemically reactive than ethane and asked for the
exemption on that basis.
Dimethyl carbonate (CAS registry number 616-38-6) may be used as a
solvent in paints and coatings. The petitioner anticipated that it
might be used in waterborne paints and adhesives because it is
partially water soluble. It is also used as a methylation and
carbonylation agent in organic synthesis. It can be used as a fuel
additive.
In support of its petition, the petitioner presented articles which
give the kOH and MIR values for the compound shown in Table
1. These articles have been placed in the docket.
As shown in Table 1, DMC has a greater kOH value than
ethane, which indicates that DMC will likely initially react more
quickly in the atmosphere. However, the MIR values for DMC calculated
on either a mass or mole basis are less than that of ethane, which
indicates lower reactivity overall. Based on these data, EPA proposes
to find that DMC is ``negligible reactivity'' and therefore exempt from
the regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). Because both the
mass and molar MIR values of DMC are less than those of ethane, this
chemical would meet EPA's exemption criteria under either MIR metric.
III. Proposed Action
This proposed action is based on EPA's review of the material in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948. The EPA hereby proposes to amend
its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude propylene
carbonate and dimethyl carbonate from the regulatory definition of VOC
for use in ozone SIPs and ozone controls for purposes of attaining the
ozone national ambient air quality standard.
The revised definition will also apply for purposes of any Federal
implementation plan for ozone nonattainment areas (see e.g., 40 CFR
52.741(a)(3)). States are not obligated to exclude from control as a
VOC those compounds that EPA has found to be negligibly reactive.
However, if this action is made final, States should not include these
compounds in their VOC emissions inventories for determining reasonable
further progress under the Act (e.g., section 182(b)(1)) and may not
take credit for controlling these compounds in their ozone control
strategy.
Excluding a compound from the regulatory definition of VOC may lead
to changes in the amount of the exempt compound used and the types of
applications in which the exempt compound is used. Although this
proposal has no mandatory reporting requirements, EPA urges States to
continue to inventory the emissions of these compounds for use in
photochemical modeling. Further, EPA invites comment on methods for
tracking the uses and emissions of these two compounds, as well as any
more reactive compounds for which these two compounds may substitute.
The EPA believes that the proposed exemptions will help to decrease
exposures to ground-level ozone by encouraging the use of exempted
negligibly reactive compounds in lieu of VOCs and thereby focusing air
quality management programs on VOC emissions that contribute most to
ozone formation. Although compounds are defined as negligibly reactive
solely on the basis of their contribution to ground-level ozone
formation, EPA is interested in evaluating whether the proposed
exemptions could increase public health risks if these negligibly
reactive compounds were toxic themselves. While EPA does not have
information to suggest that the proposed exemptions could increase
health risks due to possible toxicity of the exempted compounds, we
invite the public to submit comments and additional information
relevant to this issue.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.
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 impose 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
[[Page 55722]]
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 this proposed rule on
small entities, I have determined 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. This 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 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 two 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 is specifically soliciting
comments on this proposed 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 invites comments
on the proposed 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.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in
[[Page 55723]]
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children.
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
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
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. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The proposed rule amendment is deregulatory and does allow
relaxation of the control measures on sources. However, this is not
expected to lead to increased ozone formation since the compounds being
exempted have been determined to have negligible photochemical
reactivity.
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: September 25, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 51, subpart F, continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479,
7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.
Sec. 51.100 [Amended]
2. Section 51.100 is amended at the end of paragraph (s)(1)
introductory text by removing the words ``and perfluorocarbon compounds
which fall into these classes:'' and adding in their place a semi-colon
and the words ``; propylene carbonate; dimethyl carbonate; and
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:''.
[FR Doc. E7-19324 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P