Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17037 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits would justify its costs. In 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected the approach 

that would maximize net benefits. Based 

on the analysis that follows, the 

Departments believe that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

proposed regulatory action would not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Intergovernmental Review: Some of 

the programs affected by this proposed 

priority are subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fedsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access document of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: March 24, 2014. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06828 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0775; FRL–9906–73– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR92 

Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory 

Definition of Volatile Organic 

Compounds—Exclusion of 2-amino-2- 

methyl-1-propanol (AMP) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to revise the regulatory definition 

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This 

direct final action adds 2-amino-2- 

methyl-1-propanol (also known as AMP; 

CAS number 124–68–5) to the list of 

compounds excluded from the 

regulatory definition of VOCs on the 

basis that this compound makes a 

negligible contribution to tropospheric 

ozone formation. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 25, 

2014 without further notice, unless the 

EPA receives adverse comment on this 

action by May 27, 2014. If the EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the final rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0775, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments: 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Email: a-and-r-Docket@

epamail.epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0775. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0775. 

• Mail: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0775, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William 

Jefferson Clinton, West Building Room: 

3334, Mail Code: 28221T, Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0775. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0775. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov, 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

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

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17038 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0775, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., William 

Jefferson Clinton West Building, 

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 Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 

566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Souad Benromdhane, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Health 

and Environmental Impacts Division, 

Mail Code C539–07, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541– 

4359; fax number: (919) 541–5315; 

email address: benromdhane.souad@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule? 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

III. Background 

A. The EPA’s VOC Exemption Policy 

B. Petition To List AMP as an Exempt 

Compound 

IV. The EPA’s Assessment of the Petition 

A. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone 

B. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health or 

the Environment 

C. Climate Impacts 

D. Conclusions 

V. Direct Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory 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 and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final 

rule? 

The EPA is publishing this direct final 

rule without a prior proposed rule 

because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. This action revises 

the EPA’s regulatory definition of VOCs 

for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain 

the NAAQS for ozone under title I of the 

CAA. However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of this Federal Register, we are 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposed rule to make 

this revision to the regulatory definition 

of VOCs if adverse comments are 

received on the parallel proposal or this 

direct final rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

If the EPA receives adverse comment, 

we will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that this direct final rule will not 

take effect. We would address all public 

comments in any subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

direct final rule include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, state and local air 

pollution control agencies that adopt 

and implement regulations to control air 

emissions of VOCs; and industries 

manufacturing and/or using pigments in 

water-based coatings, additives in 

metalworking fluids and in food contact 

paper, neutralizers in personal care 

products, and intermediates in chemical 

synthesis. 

III. Background 

A. The EPA’s VOC Exemption Policy 

Tropospheric ozone, commonly 

known as smog, is formed when VOCs 

and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the 

atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. 

Because of the harmful health effects of 

ozone, the EPA and state governments 

limit the amount of VOCs 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 or form less ozone; therefore, 

changes in their emissions have limited 

effects on local or regional ozone 

pollution episodes. It has been the 

EPA’s policy that organic compounds 

with a negligible level of reactivity 

should be excluded from the regulatory 

definition of VOCs so as to focus VOCs 

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 

compounds that it has determined to be 

negligibly reactive in its regulations as 

being excluded from the regulatory 

definition of VOCs. (40 CFR 51.100(s)). 

The CAA requires the regulation of 

VOCs for various purposes. Section 

302(s) of the CAA specifies that the EPA 

has the authority to define the meaning 

of ‘‘VOC,’’ and hence what compounds 

shall be treated as VOCs for regulatory 

purposes. The policy of excluding 

negligibly reactive compounds from the 

regulatory definition of VOCs was first 

laid out in the ‘‘Recommended Policy 

on Control of Volatile Organic 

Compounds’’ (42 FR 35314, July 8, 

1977) and was supplemented 

subsequently with the ‘‘Interim 

Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic 

Compounds in Ozone State 

Implementation Plans’’ (70 FR 54046, 

September 13, 2005). The EPA uses the 

reactivity of ethane as the threshold for 

determining whether a compound has 

negligible reactivity. Compounds that 

are less reactive than, or equally reactive 

to, ethane under certain assumed 

conditions may be deemed negligibly 

reactive and therefore suitable for 

exemption from the regulatory 

definition of VOCs. Compounds that are 

more reactive than ethane continue to 

be considered VOCs for regulatory 

purposes and therefore are 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. 

The EPA has used three different 

metrics to compare the reactivity of a 

specific compound to that of ethane: (i) 

The reaction rate constant (known as 

kOH) with the hydroxyl radical (OH); (ii) 

the maximum incremental reactivity 

(MIR) on a reactivity per unit mass 

basis; and (iii) the MIR expressed on a 

reactivity per mole basis. Differences 

between these three metrics are 

discussed below. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17039 

ozone at a very fast rate. The kOH values 

have long been used by the EPA as a 

metric of photochemical reactivity and 

ozone-forming activity, and they have 

been the basis for most of the EPA’s 

previous exemptions of negligibly 

reactive compounds from the regulatory 

definition of VOCs. The kOH metric is 

inherently a molar-based comparison, 

i.e., it measures the rate at which 

molecules react. 

The MIR, both by mole and by mass, 

is a more recently developed metric of 

photochemical reactivity derived from a 

computer-based photochemical model. 

This metric considers the complete 

ozone forming activity of a compound 

on a single day, not merely the first 

reaction step. Further explanation of the 

MIR metric can be found in Carter, 

1994. 

The MIR values for compounds are 

typically expressed as grams of ozone 

formed per gram of VOC (mass basis), 

but they may also be expressed as grams 

of ozone formed per mole of VOC (molar 

basis). For comparing the reactivities of 

two compounds, using the molar-based 

MIR values considers an equal number 

of molecules of the two compounds. 

Alternatively, using the mass-based 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-based MIR 

comparison is consistent with the 

original smog chamber experiments that 

underlie the original selection of ethane 

as the threshold compound, in that 

these experiments compared equal 

molar concentrations of individual 

VOCs. It is also consistent with previous 

reactivity determinations based on kOH

values, which are inherently molarbased. By contrast, the mass-based MIR 

comparison is more consistent with how 

MIR values and other reactivity metrics 

have been applied in reactivity-based 

emission limits, such as the national 

VOC emissions standards for aerosol 

coatings (40 CFR part 59 subpart E). 

Many other VOCs regulations contain 

limits based upon a weight of VOC per 

volume of product, such as the EPA’s 

regulations for limiting VOC emissions 

from architectural coatings (40 CFR part 

59 subpart D). However, the fact that 

regulations are structured to measure 

VOC content by weight for ease of 

implementation and enforcement does 

not necessarily control whether VOC 

exemption decisions should be made on 

a weight basis as well. 

The choice of the molar basis versus 

the mass basis for the ethane 

comparison can be significant. In some 

cases, a compound might be considered 

less reactive than ethane under the mass 

basis but not under the molar basis. For 

compounds with molecular weights 

higher than that of ethane, use of the 

mass basis results in more VOCs being 

classified as less reactive than ethane 

than use of the molar basis. 

The EPA has considered the choice 

between a molar or mass basis for the 

comparison to ethane in past 

rulemakings and guidance. In the 

Interim Guidance, the EPA stated: 

[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. 

The EPA’s 2005 Interim Guidance 

also noted that concerns have 

sometimes been raised about the 

potential impact of a VOC exemption on 

environmental endpoints other than 

ozone concentrations, including fine 

particle formation, air toxics exposures, 

stratospheric ozone depletion and 

climate change. The EPA has 

recognized, however, that there are 

existing regulatory and non-regulatory 

programs that are specifically designed 

to address these issues, and the EPA 

continues to believe in general that the 

impacts of VOC exemptions on 

environmental endpoints other than 

ozone formation will be adequately 

addressed by these programs. The VOC 

exemption policy is intended to 

facilitate attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS. As such, in general, VOC 

exemption decisions will continue to be 

based solely on consideration of a 

compound’s contribution to ozone 

formation. However, if EPA determines 

that a particular VOC exemption is 

likely to result in a significant increase 

in the use of a compound and that the 

increased use would pose a significant 

risk to human health or the environment 

that would not be addressed adequately 

by existing programs or policies, the 

EPA reserves the right to exercise its 

judgment in deciding whether to grant 

an exemption. 

B. Petition To List AMP as an Exempt 

Compound 

Dow Chemical Company submitted a 

petition to the EPA on October 12, 2012, 

requesting that 2-amino-2-methyl-1- 

propanol (also known as AMP; CAS 

number 124–68–5) be exempted from 

the regulatory definition of VOCs based 

on its low reactivity relative to ethane. 

The petitioner indicated that AMP may 

be used in a variety of applications 

including in industries involved in the 

manufacture or use of pigments in 

water-based coatings, as an additive in 

metalworking fluids, in food contact 

paper, as a neutralizer in personal care 

products, and as an intermediate in 

chemical synthesis. 

To support its petition, Dow Chemical 

referenced several documents, including 

a technical report on the maximum 

incremental reactivity of AMP (Carter, 

2012) and two peer-reviewed journal 

articles on its reaction rates. According 

to these documents, the reactivity of 

AMP is 0.25 gm O3/gm AMP in the 

maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) 

scale. The reactivity rate is slightly less 

than that of ethane, 0.28 gm O3/gm 

ethane, the compound that the EPA has 

used for comparison to define 

‘‘negligible’’ ozone reactivity for the 

purpose of exempting compounds from 

the regulatory definition of VOCs. The 

rate constant for the gas-phase reaction 

of OH radicals with AMP, (kOH) has 

been measured to be 2.8 × 10¥11 cm3/ 

molecule-sec at ∼300 K (Harris and Pitts, 

1983), giving it a relatively short 

lifetime in the atmosphere and thus 

reducing its ability to contribute to 

ozone formation. Under the 

conventional assumption of OH 

concentration of 3 × 106 molecules/cm3, 

AMP would decay exponentially with a 

mean lifetime of about 4 hours (Carter, 

2008). Based on the measured reactivity 

rate of AMP (Harris and Pitts, 1983), 

AMP has a larger kOH than ethane 

(ethane = 2.4 × 10¥13) and therefore it 

is initially more reactive than ethane, 

but as explained in detail in Carter, 

2008, AMP’s first reaction primarily 

terminates radicals rather than cycling 

them and therefore generally reduces 

ozone. With regard to stratospheric 

ozone depletion, the petitioner stated 

that the ozone depletion potential of 

AMP is insignificant based on the 

expected possible initial reactions 

described in Carter 2008 and the general 

theory supporting the estimated 

mechanisms discussed in Carter 2012. 

Given that AMP has a relatively short 

atmospheric lifetime, and because it 

does not contain chlorine or bromine, it 

is not expected to contribute to the 

depletion of the stratospheric ozone 

layer. 

IV. The EPA’s Assessment of the 

Petition 

The EPA is taking direct final action 

to approve the petition for exemption of 

AMP from the regulatory definition of 

VOCs. This action is consistent with the 

2005 Interim Guidance based on 

comparison of the three reactivity 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17040 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1U.S. EPA. High Production Volume (HPV) 

Challenge Program; http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/

hpvis/hazchar/124685_AMP_March_2012.pdf. 

metric values for AMP to the 

corresponding values for ethane. As a 

short-lived substance, there is no 

evidence that AMP would have a 

substantial climate impact: AMP meets 

the Interim Guidance criteria for no 

significant risks in terms of 

environmental endpoints other than 

ozone formation. Information on these 

topics is given in the following sections. 

A. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone 

The reaction rate of AMP for reaction 

with OH radical (kOH) has been 

measured to be 2.8 × 10¥11 cm3/

molecule-sec (Harris and Pitts, 1983); 

other reactions with ozone and nitrate 

radical were negligibly small. The 

corresponding reaction rate of ethane 

with OH is 2.4 × 10¥13 cm3/moleculesec (Atkinson et al., 2006). 

The overall atmospheric reactivity of 

AMP was studied in an experimental 

smog chamber, and the chemical 

mechanism derived from this study was 

used to model the complete formation of 

ozone for an entire single day under 

realistic atmospheric conditions (Carter, 

2012). Using the standard 39-city array 

of input conditions, Carter calculated a 

MIR value of 0.25 g O3/g VOC for AMP 

for ‘‘averaged conditions,’’ versus 0.28 g 

O3/g VOC for ethane. 

Table 1 presents the three reactivity 

metrics for AMP as they compare to 

ethane. 

TABLE 1—REACTIVITIES OF ETHANE AND AMP 

Compound kOH

(cm3/molecule-sec) 

Maximum incremental reactivity 

(MIR) 

(g O3/mole 

VOC) 

Maximum 

incremental 

reactivity 

(MIR) 

(g O3/g VOC) 

Ethane ............................................................................................................................ 2.4 × 10¥13 ................ 8 .4 0.28 

AMP ............................................................................................................................... 2.8 × 10¥11 ................ 22 .25 0.25 

Notes: 

1. kOH value at 298 K for ethane is from Atkinson et al., 2006 (page 2636). 

2. kOH value at 300 K for AMP is from Harris and Pitts, 1983 (page 50). 

3. Mass-based MIR value (g O3/g VOC) of ethane is from Carter, 2011. 

4. Mass-based MIR value (g O3/g VOC) of AMP is from Carter, 2012. 

5. Molar-based MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were calculated from the mass-based MIR (g O3/g VOC) values using the number of moles per 

gram of the relevant organic compound. 

From the data in Table 1, it can be 

seen that AMP has a higher kOH value 

than ethane, meaning that it initially 

reacts more quickly in the atmosphere 

than ethane. Also, a molecule of AMP 

is more reactive than a molecule of 

ethane in terms of complete ozone 

forming activity as shown by the molarbased MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values. 

However, the nitrogen-centered radical 

in AMP scavenges radicals, primarily 

NOX and is expected to form nitramine 

that is assumed to be inert according to 

Harris and Pitts, 1983. This is in line 

with the effects of AMP addition on 

ozone concentration reduction observed 

in the chamber experiments of Carter, 

2008. The early reactivity of AMP is 

thus short lived, because the reaction 

pathway is terminated by the 

intermediate production of assumed 

inert nitramine. Unlike other VOCs, 

AMP is a base and might be lost to some 

degree by reaction with HNO3, forming 

non-volatile amine salts, reducing its 

availability in the gas phase for O3

formation. As a result, one gram of AMP 

has a lower MIR value than one gram of 

ethane. Thus, under the 2005 Interim 

Guidance AMP is eligible to be 

exempted from the regulatory definition 

of VOCs, on the basis of the mass-based 

MIR. 

B. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health 

or the Environment 

Information in Dow Chemical 

Company’s petition and its appendices 

as well as the reference material 

indicates that AMP has low toxicity 

(Griffin 1990), no irritation or skin 

sensitization, and no detectable 

genotoxic activity in vitro or in vivo. 

AMP was subject to the Ames test, the 

mouse lymphoma assay and the mouse 

micronucleus test (Gudi, 1998; San and 

Clark, 1997; and Wagner 1996) and was 

found negative in these studies among 

several others. AMP has a toxicity 

profile amply documented in the 

appendices provided with the petition 

material and placed in the docket for 

this rulemaking. AMP also has a 

favorable toxicity profile supported by 

the Hazard Characterization Document 

dedicated to AMP published by EPA in 

March of 2012, titled ‘‘Screening-level 

Hazard Characterization of High 

Production Volume Chemicals—2- 

Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) 

CASRN 124–68–5’’ under the High 

Production Volume (HPV) Challenge 

Program.1

In addition, AMP is a reasonably 

strong base and forms salts with acids. 

Therefore, in many formulations very 

little AMP will evaporate and will be 

available for atmospheric reaction due 

to its ionic or salt form. Therefore, 

exposure is low due to low volatility at 

room temperature. However, repeated 

inhalation of vapor or mist could cause 

respiratory irritation. Burnett et al. 

(2009) reviewed safety data and found 

that AMP is safe to use in cosmetics 

after he performed several acute 

inhalation studies with AMP as well as 

with AMP in alcohol and propellant. 

The studies indicated that AMP is 

nontoxic by inhalation. The studies also 

tested other routes of exposure and 

found them to be nontoxic as well. 

AMP is not regulated as a hazardous 

air pollutant (HAP) under title I of the 

Clean Air Act. Also, it is not listed as 

a toxic chemical under section 313 of 

the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA). 

The Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) requires the EPA to assess and 

prevent any unreasonable risks to 

human health and the environment 

before a new chemical substance is 

introduced into commerce. Section 5 of 

TSCA requires manufacturers and 

importers to notify the EPA before 

manufacturing or importing a new 

chemical substance. This 

premanufacture notice, or PMN, must be 

submitted at least 90 days prior to the 

manufacture (including import) of the 

chemical. Under the TSCA New 

Chemicals Program, the EPA then 

performs a risk assessment on the new 

chemical substance to determine 

whether an unreasonable risk may, or 

will, be presented by the expected 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, use, and disposal of the new 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17041 

substance. AMP is TSCA compliant, but 

is not a new compound and did not 

undergo PMN review. 

The Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) program is the EPA’s 

program to evaluate and regulate 

substitutes for ozone-depleting 

chemicals. In Section 612(c) of the CAA, 

the agency is authorized to identify and 

publish lists of acceptable and 

unacceptable substitutes for class I or 

class II ozone-depleting substances. 

AMP is not a substitute for any of the 

ozone-depleting chemicals, and it has 

not been evaluated under the SNAP 

program. For the reasons stated in 

section III, AMP does not contribute to 

the depletion of the stratospheric ozone 

layer. 

C. Climate Impacts 

The EPA has previously exempted 

compounds with modest climate 

impacts from the regulatory definition 

of VOCs. Because AMP has a relatively 

short atmospheric lifetime (i.e., about 4 

hours under the conventional 

assumption of a hydroxyl radical 

concentration of 3 × 106 molecules/

cm3), its direct contribution to global 

warming should be insignificant and 

thus any indirect contributions to global 

warming through interactions with 

ozone and methane chemistry should be 

of the order of or smaller than that of 

ethane (in addition to any conversion of 

carbon in AMP to carbon dioxide). 

D. Conclusion 

In summary, the EPA finds that AMP 

is negligibly reactive with respect to its 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation and thus may be exempted 

from EPA’s definition of VOCs in 40 

CFR section 51.100(s). We consider risks 

not related to tropospheric ozone 

associated with currently allowed uses 

of the chemical to be acceptable. AMP 

has not been the subject of any SNAP 

review. AMP’s performance as a 

multifunctional neutralizer combined 

with its reduced ozone potential and 

favorable toxicity data makes this 

product a preferred one compared to 

more toxic chemicals used for the same 

purpose. In addition, there is no 

evidence that climate effects or other 

environmental impacts resulting from 

AMP emissions should disqualify AMP 

for exemption from the regulatory 

definition of VOCs based on the 2005 

Interim Guidance criteria. 

V. Direct Final Action 

The EPA is responding to the petition 

by revising its regulatory definition of 

VOCs at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to add AMP 

to the list of compounds that are exempt 

from the regulatory definition of VOCs 

because they are negligibly reactive, on 

the basis that it is less reactive than 

ethane on a mass MIR basis. If an entity 

uses or produces any of this compound 

and is subject to EPA regulations 

limiting the use of VOC in a product, 

limiting the VOC emissions from a 

facility, or otherwise controlling the use 

of VOC for purposes related to attaining 

the ozone NAAQS, then this compound 

will not be counted as a VOC in 

determining whether these regulatory 

obligations have been met. This action 

may also affect whether this compound 

is considered a VOC for state regulatory 

purposes to reduce ozone formation if a 

state relies on the EPA’s regulatory 

definition of VOCs. States are not 

obligated to exclude from control as a 

VOC those compounds that the EPA has 

found to be negligibly reactive. 

However, no state may take credit for 

controlling this compound in its ozone 

control strategy. For example, reduction 

in emissions for this compound will not 

be considered or counted in 

determining whether states have met 

rate of progress requirement for VOCs in 

SIPs for purpose of meeting the ozone 

NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory 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 Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

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). It does not 

contain any recordkeeping or reporting 

requirement. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 proposed 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 notice on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is a small industrial entity as 

defined in the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards. 

(See 13 CFR 121.); (2) A 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 direct final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. This direct 

final rule removes AMP from the 

regulatory definition of VOCs and 

thereby relieves users of the compound 

from requirements to control emissions 

of the compound. We have therefore 

concluded that this direct final rule will 

relieve regulatory burden for all affected 

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 or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

direct final rule removes AMP from the 

regulatory definition of VOCs and 

thereby relieves users of the compound 

from requirements to control emissions 

of the compound. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action 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 direct final 

rule removes AMP from the regulatory 

definition of VOCs and thereby relieves 

users of the compound from 

requirements to control emissions of the 

compound. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It would 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 direct final rule removes AMP from 

the regulatory definition of VOCs and 

thereby relieves users from 

requirements to control emissions of the 

compound. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866. While this direct 

final rule is not subject to the Executive 

Order, the EPA has reason to believe 

that at higher concentrations 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 AMP may 

affect children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘(66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under EO 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

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 the 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 

the 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, 

the EPA has not considered the use of 

any voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

direct final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it will not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This direct final rule 

removes AMP from the regulatory 

definition of VOCs and thereby relieves 

users of the compound from 

requirements to control emissions of the 

compound. 

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 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 on 

June 25, 2014. 

L. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days 

from the date the final action is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Filing a petition for review by the 

Administrator of this final action does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review must be 

filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such action. Thus, any 

petitions for review of this action 

related to the exemption of AMP from 

the regulatory definition of VOCs must 

be filed in the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit within 60 

days from the date final action is 

published in the Federal Register. 

References 

Atkinson, R., Baulch, D.L., Cox, R.A., 

Crowley, J.N., Hampson, Jr., R.F., Hynes, 

R.G., Jenkin, M.E., Kerr, J.A., Rossi, M.J., 

and Troe, J. (2006) Evaluated kinetic and 

photochemical data for atmospheric 

chemistry: Volume II—gas phase 

reactions of organic species. Atmos. 

Chem. Phys. 6: 3625–4055. 

Burnett, C.L., Bergfeld, W.F., Belsito, D.V., 

Klaassen, C.D., Marks, Jr., J.G., Shank, 

R.C., Slaga, T.J., Snyder, P.W., Expert 

Panel, and Andersen, F.A. (2009) Final 

Amended Report on Safety Assessment 

on Aminomethyl Propanol and 

Aminomethyl Propanediol. Int. J. 

Toxicol 28(6S) 141S–161S. 

Carter, W.P.L. (1994) Development of Ozone 

Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic 

Compositions. J. Air Waste Manage, 44: 

881–899. 

Carter, W.P.L. (2008) Reactivity Estimates for 

Selected Consumer Product Compounds, 

Final Report to California Air Resources 

Board Contract No. 06–408, February 19, 

2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/

reactivity/consumer_products.pdf. 

Carter, W.P.L. (2010) Development of the 

SAPRC–07 Chemical Mechanism and 

Updated Ozone Reactivity Scales, Report 

to the California Air Resources Board, 

Revised January 27, 2010. http://

www.engr.ucr.edu/∼carter/SAPRC/

saprc07.pdf. 

Carter, W.P.L. (2011) SAPRC Atmospheric 

Chemical Mechanisms and VOC 

Reactivity Scales, Web page at http://

www.cert.ucr.edu/∼carter/SAPRC/. Page 

last updated June 21. Reactivity 

tabulation available at http://

www.cert.ucr.edu/∼carter/SAPRC/

scales07.xls. May 11 May 11, 2011. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17043 

Carter, W.P.L. (2012) Atmospheric Ozone 

Reactivity Estimates for 2-amino-2- 

methyl-1-propanol, College of 

Engineering Center for Environmental 

Research and Technology (CE–CERT) 

and Air Pollution Research Center, 

University of California, Riverside CA 

92521, September 26, 2012. 

Griffin, T. (1990). A One-Year Oral Toxicity 

Study of AMP in Dogs. Coulston 

Research Incorporated, White Sands 

Research Center, Alamogordo, NM, USA. 

Amended by the original author on April 

20, 1993. 

Gudi, R. (1998) Mammalian Erythrocyte 

Micronucleus Test (2-amino-2-methyl-1- 

propanol). Laboratory Study Number 

G97CG03.123 of MA Bioservices, Inc., 

Rockville, MD. Sponsored by Angus 

Chemical Company, Buffalo Grove, IL. 

Harris, G. and Pitts, J. (1983) Rates of 

Reaction of Hydroxyl Radicals with 2- 

(Dimethylamino) ethanol and 2-Amino2-methyl-1-propanol in the Gas Phase at 

300 ± 2 K. Environ Sci. Technol., 17: 50– 

51, 1983. 

San, R. and Clark, J. (1997) In Vitro 

Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Test 

with an Independent Repeat Assay. 

Microbiological Associates, Inc. The 

Dow Chemical Company Report No: DR– 

0309–4391–005. 

Wagner, V. (1996) Salmonella/Escherichia 

Coli Plate Incorporation Mutagenicity 

Assay with a Confirmatory Assay. Study 

Number G95BU17.502001 of 

Microbiological Associates, Inc., 

Rockville, MD. 

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: March 21, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

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 

Subpart F—Procedural Requirements 

■ 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. 

§ 51.100—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 51.100, paragraph (s)(1) 

introductory text, is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’ and adding in their 

place the words ‘‘2-amino-2-methyl-1- 

propanol; and perfluorocarbon 

compounds which fall into these 

classes:’’. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06790 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0211; FRL–9908–46– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Whenever new or revised 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA 

requires states to submit a plan for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan 

is required to address basic program 

elements, including, but not limited to 

regulatory structure, monitoring, 

modeling, legal authority, and adequate 

resources necessary to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the standards. 

These elements are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. The 

Commonwealth of Virginia has made a 

submittal addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0211. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of SIP Revision 

On July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39671), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia proposing 

approval of Virginia’s July 23, 2012 

submittal to satisfy several requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. In the NPR, EPA 

proposed approval of the following 

infrastructure elements: Sections 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement 

and regulation of minor sources and 

minor modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for 

visibility protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), 

(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (relating to 

consultation, public notification, and 

visibility protection requirements), (K), 

(L), and (M), or portions thereof. EPA is 

taking separate action on the portions of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as 

they relate to Virginia’s prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) program 

and on section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it 

relates to section 128 (State Boards). 

Virginia did not submit section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the 

nonattainment requirements of part D, 

Title I of the CAA, since this element is 

not required to be submitted by the 

three year submission deadline of 

section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed 

in a separate process. Virginia also did 

not include a component to address 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as it is not 

required in accordance with the EME 

Homer City decision from the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit, until EPA has 

defined a state’s contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another state. See EME 

Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 

133 U.S. 2857 (2013). Unless the EME 

Homer City decision is reversed or 

otherwise modified by the Supreme 

Court, states such as Virginia are not 

required to submit section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has 

quantified their obligations under that 

section. Therefore, EPA is not acting on 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES