69290 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

follow all provisions set forth in 37 CFR 

part 259.

d. Hand Delivery by Commercial 

Courier

Section 259.5(a)(2) directs that claims 

delivered by a commercial courier must 

be delivered directly to the 

Congressional Courier Acceptance Site 

(‘‘CCAS’’) located at 2nd and D Streets, 

N.E. The CCAS will accept items from 

couriers with proper identification, e.g., 

a valid driver’s license, Monday through 

Friday, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

The envelope containing an original and 

two copies of each claim should be 

addressed as follows: Office of the 

General Counsel/CARP, Room LM–403, 

James Madison Memorial Building, 101 

Independence Avenue, S.E., 

Washington, D.C. The date of receipt as 

documented by CCAS will be 

considered the date of receipt by the 

Copyright Office for purposes of timely 

filing. Any claim received by CCAS 

which does not have a date stamp of 

February 28, 2005, or earlier, will be 

considered untimely for this filing 

period and will be rejected by the 

Copyright Office.

Claimants delivering their claims by 

commercial courier should note that 

they must follow all provisions set forth 

in 37 CFR part 259.

e. By Mail

Section 259.5(a)(3) directs claimants 

filing their claims by mail to send the 

claims to the Copyright Arbitration 

Royalty Panel, P.O. Box 70977, 

Southwest Station, Washington, DC 

20024. Claimants electing to send their 

claims by mail are encouraged to send 

their claims by certified mail return 

receipt requested, to have the certified 

mail receipt (PS Form 3800) stamped by 

the United States Postal Service, and to 

retain the certified mail receipt in order 

to provide proof of timely filing, should 

the claim reach the Office after February 

28, 2005. In the event there is a question 

as to whether the claim was deposited 

with the United States Postal Service 

during the months of January or 

February, the claimant must produce 

the certified mail receipt (PS Form 

3800) which bears a United States Postal 

Service postmark, indicating an 

appropriate date. 37 CFR 259.5(e). 

Claims received after February 28, 2005, 

dated with only a business meter mark 

will be rejected as untimely unless the 

claimant is able to produce the certified 

mail receipt. See Universal Studios 

LLLP v. Peters, 308 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 

2004); Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Studios, 

Inc. v. Peters, 309 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 

2004).

Claimants should also note that 

§259.5(a)(4) prohibits the filing of 

claims by overnight delivery services 

such as Federal Express, United Parcel 

Service, etc. Claimants opting to file 

their claims by means of overnight 

delivery must use the Express Mail 

service provided by the U.S. Postal 

Service and address the envelope as 

instructed in this section. Using this 

service will better ensure the 

procurement of a January or February 

postmark and the receipt of the claim by 

the Office in a timely manner.

However, as noted above, disruption 

of the mail service and delivery of 

incoming mail to an off–site screening 

center have reduced the timeliness of 

receipt of mail by the Copyright Office. 

Therefore, the Office suggests that 

claimants use the mail only if none of 

the other methods outlined above are 

feasible.

When filing claims by this method, 

claimants must follow all provisions set 

forth in 37 CFR part 259.

Waiver of Regulation

The regulations governing the filing of 

DART claims require ‘‘the original 

signature of the claimant or of a duly 

authorized representative of the 

claimant,’’ 37 CFR 259.3(b), and do not 

allow claims to be filed by ‘‘facsimile 

transmission,’’ 37 CFR 259.5(d). This 

Notice, however, waives these 

provisions as set forth herein solely for 

the purpose of filing claims to the 2004 

DART royalties. The Office is not 

waiving the statutory deadline for the 

filing of DART claims, a deadline the 

Office has no power to waive. See, 

United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 101 

(1985). Thus, claimants are still required 

to file their claims by February 28, 2005.

Waiver of an agency’s rules is 

‘‘appropriate only if special 

circumstances warrant a deviation from 

the general rule and such deviation will 

serve the public interest.’’ Northeast 

Cellular Telephone Company v. FCC, 

897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see 

also, Wait Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 

(D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 

1027 (1972). Under ordinary 

circumstances, the Office is reluctant to 

waive its regulations. However, due to 

the continuing delays in the delivery of 

mail and the transition to an electronic 

filing system, the Office believes under 

these special circumstances the public 

interest will best be served by waiving, 

for this filing period, for the final time 

the requirement that DART claims bear 

the original signature of the claimant or 

of a duly authorized representative of 

the claimant, when, and only when, 

such claim is filed on–line through the 

Office’s website. See 67 FR at 5214.

Since the Office cannot waive the 

statutory deadline set forth in 17 U.S.C. 

1007 and accept claims filed after 

February 25, 2005, see Locke, supra, the 

Office believes the public interest will 

be served by providing claimants with 

alternative methods of filing, in addition 

to those set forth in the regulations, in 

order to assist them in timely filing their 

claims. By allowing claims to be filed 

on–line and by facsimile transmission, 

the Office is affording to all claimants 

an equal opportunity to meet the 

statutory deadline.

Dated: November 22, 2004.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

[FR Doc. 04–26266 Filed 11–26–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–33–S

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-ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-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

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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-methoxypropane, or 3-ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-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-methoxybutane (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-methoxybutane (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 

69292 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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-methoxypropane and 3-ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-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-trichloro1,2,2-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-MethoxyPropane and 3-Ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-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-methoxypropane 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). 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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-ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-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-propane .......................................... Refrigerant; aerosol propellant. 

3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane Refrigerant. 

1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane ............................................................. Fire suppressant; aerosol propellant. 

Methyl formate .......................................................................................... Blowing agent. 

Although 3-ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-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 peerreviewed 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°C) WITH OH RADICAL

Compound cm3/molecule/sec 

(kOH) 

Ethane ....................... 2.4 × 10–13

n-C3F7OCH3 .............. 1.2 × 10–14

HFE–7500 ................. 2.2 × 10–14

HFC–227ea ............... 1.09 × 10–15

Methyl formate .......... 2.27 × 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 × 10–15 cm3/molecule/

sec at 277K (0°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 × 10–13

cm3/molecule/sec which is slightly 

below that for ethane at 2.4 × 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 

69294 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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-methoxybutane (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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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-heptafluoro3-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-ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-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 timeweighted average. The National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) has also established a shortterm 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 multiday 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. 

69296 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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.

■ 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

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows:

69298 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1The petition was submitted on January 17, 1997, 

by ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell is the 

successor to ARCO for this petition, and EPA will 

refer to the petitioner as Lyondell throughout this 

final rule.

Authority: 23 U.S.C.; 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7641q.

■ 2. Section 51.100 is amended by 

revising paragraph (s)(1) as follows:

Subpart F—[Amended]

§ 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-trichloro1,2,2-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-chloro1,1,1,2-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-ethoxy1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-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-methoxypropane (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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[OAR–2003–0084; FRL–7840–8] 

RIN 2060–AI45 

Revision to Definition of Volatile 

Organic Compounds—Exclusion of

t-Butyl Acetate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action revises EPA’s 

definition of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) for purposes of 

Federal regulations related to attaining 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for ozone under 

title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This 

revision modifies the definition of VOC 

to say that t-butyl acetate (also known 

as tertiary butyl acetate or informally as 

TBAC or TBAc) will not be VOC for 

purposes of VOC emissions limitations 

or VOC content requirements, but will 

continue to be VOC for purposes of all 

recordkeeping, emissions reporting, and 

inventory requirements which apply to 

VOC. This revision is made on the basis 

that this compound has negligible 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation. As a result, if you are subject 

to certain Federal regulations limiting 

emissions of VOCs, your emissions of 

TBAC may not be regulated for some 

purposes.

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 29, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2003–0084 (legacy docket 

number A–99–02). All documents in the 

docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Johnson, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Strategies and Standards Division 

(C539–02), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; (919)541–5245; e-mail: 

johnson.williaml@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information 

A. How Does This Rule Fit Into Existing 

Regulations? 

The EPA is revising the definition of 

VOC to say that TBAC will not be a VOC 

for purposes of VOC emissions 

limitations or VOC content 

requirements, but will continue to be a 

VOC for purposes of all recordkeeping, 

emissions reporting, and inventory 

requirements which apply to VOC. If 

you use or produce TBAC 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 

for purposes related to attaining the 

ozone NAAQS, then you will not count 

TBAC as a VOC in determining whether 

you meet these regulatory obligations. 

However, TBAC emissions will still be 

subject to reporting requirements that 

exist for other VOC emissions. This 

action may also affect whether TBAC is 

considered a VOC for State regulatory 

purposes, depending on whether the 

State relies on EPA’s definition of VOC. 

This decision responds to a petition 

submitted by the Lyondell Chemical 

Company 1 and is based on information