[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3437-3441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1150]
[[Page 3437]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948; FRL-8763-7]
RIN 2060-AN75
Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds--Exclusion of Propylene Carbonate and Dimethyl Carbonate
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises 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 revision adds the
compounds propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate to the list of
compounds which are excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis
that these compounds make a negligible contribution to tropospheric
ozone formation.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 20, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (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 http://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 Policy Division, Mail code
C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5245.;
fax number: 919-541-0824; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be an entity affected by this 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 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
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 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. 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. How is this preamble organized?
II. Background
A. Propylene Carbonate
B. Dimethyl Carbonate
III. 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. Executive Order 12848: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
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 rule. Differences
between these three metrics are discussed below.
[[Page 3438]]
Table 1--Reactivities of Ethane and Compounds Considered for Exemption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR (g O3/mole
Compound kOH (cm3/molecule-sec) VOC) MIR (g O3/gramVOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane.................................... 2.4 x 10-13.................. 8.12 0.27
Propylene carbonate....................... 6.9 x 10-13.................. 27.56 0.27
Dimethyl carbonate........................ 3.49 x 10-13................. 5.04 0.056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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, ``Development of the SAPRC-
07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone Reactivity Scales,''
Appendix B, July 7, 2008. This may be found at http://
www.engr.ucr.edu/~carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf. These values have been
revised slightly from those given in the proposal notice (72 FR
55717).
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 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
coatings (see http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/regs/apt.pdf ).
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 action falls into this
situation, where the molar MIR value is greater than that of ethane,
but the mass MIR value is less than or equal to 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 proposed 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 since
they are equal to or less reactive than ethane on a mass basis. For
propylene carbonate, EPA invited comment on the alternative use of a
molar basis for the comparison of these compounds to ethane.
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 mm Hg at 20(
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.
[[Page 3439]]
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 2007 MIR value that was taken from more recent
2007 data from Dr. Carter's Web site. This 2007 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 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 finds that
propylene carbonate is ``negligibly reactive'' and therefore exempt for
the regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). EPA took comments
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. None of the comments received during the public comment
period opposed using the g O3/g VOC basis. In fact, the
comments which addressed that issue supported the use of the MIR on a g
O3/g VOC basis for granting exemptions.
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 kOH and MIR values for the compound. 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 finds that
DMC is ``negligibly reactive'' 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 meets
EPA's exemption criteria under either MIR metric.
III. Response to Comments
EPA proposed these actions on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55717) and
took public comment on the proposal. Here is a summary of the comments
received during the public comment period and EPA's response. There was
no request for a public hearing on the proposal and none was held.
There were four comment letters submitted to the docket during the
public comment period. One comment letter was from an individual. Two
were from chemical companies. One comment letter was from a trade
association. The comments are summarized below.
Comment: The Web site reference for the latest MIR values contained
an error. The site which was listed as http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/carter/SAPRC/scales07.xls should have been http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/
SAPRC/scales07.xls.
Response: We left out the ~ sign in the Web address which made it
incorrect. The latest MIR data which is used in this final rule may be
found in Appendix B of the July 7, 2008 report by William P. L. Carter
``Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone
Reactivity Scales.'' This report may be found at http://
www.engr.ucr.edu/~carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf.
Comment: One commenter corrected certain technical information
about the evaporation rate of dimethyl carbonate which was listed in
the docket.
Response: This correction is noted, but this minor change did not
impact whether or not EPA should finalize the exemption petition.
Comment: One commenter supported the use of the latest MIR values
for making VOC exemption determinations. There were no comments
opposing the use of the latest MIR values.
Response: EPA acknowledged recent MIR values which were made public
shortly before the proposal to grant VOC exemption to propylene
carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, but based the proposal on older MIR
values which had been previously published. EPA is using the latest MIR
values for this final rule.\2\ The use of the newer MIR values does not
change the conclusion about the VOC exemption of propylene carbonate
and dimethyl carbonate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR values used for this rule may be found in Appendix B
of the July 7, 2008 report by William P.L. Carter ``Development of
the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone Reactivity
Scales.'' This report may be found at http://www.engr.ucr.edu/carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf or in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The two industry commenters, and the trade association
comment letter each expressed support for the VOC exemption of
propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate.
Response: EPA acknowledges this support and notes that there were
no comments opposing these exemptions.
Comment: Three commenters opposed separate tracking and reporting
for propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate. Two of these commenters
also expressed opposition for separate tracking for any VOC exempt
compounds.
Response: Although the rule preamble encourages record keeping for
propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, there is no requirement for
this in the rule itself. Record keeping for other exempt compounds is
not the subject of this rulemaking, so comments about that are not
relevant to this action.
Comment: Three of the commenters support the use of the mass-based
MIR approach versus the mole-based approach. One of the commenters
submitted as part of his comments a November 15, 1999 letter written by
William P.L. Carter supporting the use of impact per mass as an
appropriate basis for comparing ozone reactivities when making VOC
exemption decisions. This Carter letter had previously been submitted
to EPA as part of the tertiary butyl acetate VOC exemption rule making
(69 FR 69298).
[[Page 3440]]
There were no comments opposing the use of the mass-based MIR approach.
Response: EPA specifically requested comment on this subject for
propylene carbonate since the mole based MIR value for that compound is
higher than that of ethane and using the mole based MIR value would not
allow the exemption for propylene carbonate. Because there were no
comments opposed to the use of the mass based approach, EPA is
proceeding to grant these exemptions on a mass based MIR basis in
keeping with the September 13, 2005 interim guidance on control of
volatile organic compounds in ozone state implementation plans which
says ``EPA will continue to compare them [i.e., compounds] to ethane
using kOH expressed on a molar basis and MIR values
expressed on a mass basis.''
Comment: One commenter, who was the petitioner for dimethyl
carbonate, said that the company recommended exposure limit of 200 ppm
time weighted average 8 hour for dimethyl carbonate is identical to
that of methyl acetate, an existing VOC exempt solvent. This commenter
also said that methyl acetate like DMC has the potential for
hydrolyzing to form methanol in the body and therefore they would be
similar in their toxicity profiles and safety handling requirements.
The commenter also denied a statement in Hawley's Condensed Chemical
Dictionary that DMC is both toxic by inhalation and a strong irritant.
Response: In the proposal, EPA said ``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.'' The comments here are the only comments EPA
received regarding health effects of these compounds. These comments
have not led EPA to identify unusual health risks from the compounds.
IV. Final Action
This action is based on EPA's review of the material in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948. The EPA hereby amends 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 the final
rule has no mandatory reporting requirements, EPA urges states to
continue to inventory the emissions of these compounds for use in
photochemical modeling.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action is deregulatory
in nature and removes requirements rather than adds requirements. The
regulation is a rule change that revises a definition of volatile
organic compound and imposes no record keeping or reporting
requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statue 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.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final action on
small entities, I certify that this rule 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
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, and tribal governments and the private
sector. 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. This action is also not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. As discussed above, this final rule does not impose
any new requirements on 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
[[Page 3441]]
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 final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the state, 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 rule concerns only the
definition of VOC. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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.
This action does not have any direct effects on Indian Tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (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. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involved technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider 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 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.
EPA has determined that this final 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 final 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.
K. 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 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States, Section 804 exempts form section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) Rules of particular application; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties, 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability to manufacturers
and users of these specific exempt chemical compounds. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this
rule will be effective on February 20, 2009.
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: January 13, 2009.
Stephen L. Johnson,
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, 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]
0
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. E9-1150 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P