Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 9339 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: February 22, 2016. 

Hal R. Pitts, 

Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04011 Filed 2–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0795; FRL–9942–80– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR65 

Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory 

Definition of Volatile Organic 

Compounds—Requirements for t-Butyl 

Acetate 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is amending the EPA’s 

regulatory definition of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). The regulatory definition of 

VOC currently excludes t-butyl acetate 

(also known as tertiary butyl acetate or 

TBAC; CAS Number: 540–88–5) for 

purposes of VOC emissions limitations 

or VOC content requirements on the 

basis that it makes a negligible 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation. However, the current 

definition includes TBAC as a VOC for 

purposes of all recordkeeping, 

emissions reporting, photochemical 

dispersion modeling and inventory 

requirements which apply to VOC. This 

final action removes the recordkeeping, 

emissions reporting, photochemical 

dispersion modeling and inventory 

requirements related to the use of TBAC 

as a VOC. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 25, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0795. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

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. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background 

A. The EPA’s VOC Exemption Policy 

B. History of the VOC Exemption for TBAC 

Including the Unique Recordkeeping, 

Emissions Reporting, Photochemical 

Dispersion Modeling and Inventory 

Requirements 

C. Petition to Remove Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements from the TBAC 

Exemption 

III. The EPA’s Assessment of the Petition 

IV. Public Comments 

V. 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 (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

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 (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities affected by this final rule 

include, but are not necessarily limited 

to, state and local air pollution control 

agencies that prepare VOC emission 

inventories and ozone attainment 

demonstrations for state implementation 

plans (SIPs). These agencies are relieved 

of the requirements to separately 

inventory emissions of TBAC. This final 

action may also affect manufacturers, 

distributors and users of TBAC and 

TBAC-containing products, which may 

include paints, inks and adhesives. This 

action allows state air agencies to no 

longer require these entities to report 

emissions of TBAC. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

rule will also be available on the 

Worldwide Web (WWW) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of this final rule will be posted 

on the TTN’s policy and guidance page 

for promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/

ozonepollution/actions.html#impl. The 

TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. If more 

information regarding the TTN is 

needed, call the TTN HELP Line at (919) 

541–4814. 

C. 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 final action 

related to the elimination of 

recordkeeping of TBAC must be filed in 

the Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit within 60 days from 

the date this final action is published in 

the Federal Register. 

II. Background 

A. The EPA’s VOC Exemption Policy 

Tropospheric ozone, commonly 

known as smog, is formed when VOC 

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 VOC that can be 

released into the atmosphere. VOCs are 

organic compounds of carbon, many of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
9340 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1Carter, William P.L., Dongmin Luo, and Irina L. 

Malkina (1997). Investigation of the Atmospheric 

Ozone Formation Potential of T-Butyl Acetate, 

Report to ARCO Chemical Corporation, Riverside: 

College of Engineering Center for Environmental 

Research and Technology, University of California, 

97–AP–RT3E–001–FR, http://www.cert.ucr.edu/

∼carter/pubs/tbuacetr.pdf. 

2Between the EPA’s proposed and final rule 

exempting TBAC as a VOC, the state of California 

raised concerns to the EPA about the potential 

carcinogenicity of tertiary-butanol, or TBA, the 

principal metabolite of TBAC. At the time, the EPA 

decided that there was insufficient evidence of 

health risks to affect the exemption decision, but 

persuaded LyondellBasell to voluntarily perform 

additional toxicity testing, use the testing results in 

a health risk assessment, and have the testing and 

assessment results reviewed in a peer consultation. 

which form ozone through atmospheric 

photochemical reactions. Different VOC 

have different levels of reactivity. That 

is, they do not react to form ozone at the 

same speed or to the same extent. Some 

VOC 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 VOC so as to 

focus control efforts on compounds that 

do significantly affect 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 VOC. The EPA lists 

compounds that it has determined to be 

negligibly reactive in its regulations as 

being excluded from the regulatory 

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

The CAA requires the regulation of 

VOC 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 VOC for regulatory 

purposes. The policy of excluding 

negligibly reactive compounds from the 

regulatory definition of VOC 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) (from here forward 

referred to as the 2005 Interim 

Guidance). 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 by the EPA from the 

regulatory definition of VOC. 

Compounds that are more reactive than 

ethane continue to be considered VOC 

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 uses two different metrics to 

compare the reactivity of a specific 

compound to that of ethane: (1) The 

reaction rate constant (known as kOH) 

with the hydroxyl radical (OH); and (2) 

the maximum incremental reactivity 

(MIR) on ozone production per unit 

mass basis. Differences between these 

metrics and the rationale for their 

selection is discussed further in the 

2005 Interim Guidance. 

B. History of the VOC Exemption for 

TBAC Including the Unique 

Recordkeeping, Emissions Reporting, 

Photochemical Dispersion Modeling and 

Inventory Requirements 

On January 17, 1997, ARCO Chemical 

Company (now known as and from here 

forward referred to as LyondellBasell) 

submitted a petition to the EPA, which 

requested that the EPA add TBAC to the 

list of compounds that are designated 

negligibly reactive in the regulatory 

definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). 

The materials submitted in support of 

this petition are contained in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0084. 

LyondellBasell’s case for TBAC being 

less reactive than ethane was based 

primarily on the use of relative 

incremental reactivity factors set forth 

in a 1997 report by Carter, et al.1

Although the kOH values for TBAC are 

higher than for ethane, Carter’s results 

indicated that the MIR value for TBAC, 

expressed in units of grams of ozone per 

gram of TBAC, was between 0.43 and 

0.48 times the MIR for ethane, 

depending on the chemical mechanism 

used to calculate the MIR. In other 

words, TBAC formed less than half as 

much ozone as an equal mass of ethane 

under the conditions assumed in the 

calculation of the MIR scale. 

On September 30, 1999, the EPA 

proposed to revise the regulatory 

definition of VOC to exclude TBAC, 

relying on the comparison of MIR 

factors expressed on a mass basis to 

conclude that TBAC is negligibly 

reactive (64 FR 52731, September 30, 

1999). However, in the final rule, the 

EPA concluded at that time that even 

‘‘negligibly reactive’’ compounds may 

contribute significantly to ozone 

formation if present in sufficient 

quantities and that emissions of these 

compounds need to be represented 

accurately in photochemical modeling 

analyses. In addition to these general 

concerns about the potential cumulative 

impacts of negligibly reactive 

compounds, the need to maintain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for TBAC was further 

justified by the potential for widespread 

use of TBAC, the fact that its relative 

reactivity falls close to the borderline of 

what has been considered negligibly 

reactive, and continuing efforts to assess 

long-term health risks.2 Based on these 

conclusions, in 2004, the EPA 

promulgated a final rule that excluded 

TBAC from the definition of VOC for 

purposes of VOC emissions limitations 

or VOC content requirements, but 

continued to define TBAC as a VOC for 

purposes of all recordkeeping, 

emissions reporting, photochemical 

dispersion modeling and inventory 

requirements that apply to VOC (69 FR 

69298, November 29, 2004) (from here 

forward referred to as the 2004 Final 

Rule). 

In the 2004 Final Rule, the EPA 

argued that the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements were not new 

requirements for TBAC as industry and 

states were already subject to such 

requirements to report TBAC as a VOC 

prior to the exemption. However, in 

practice, the rule created a new, distinct 

recordkeeping and reporting burden by 

requiring that TBAC be ‘‘uniquely 

identified’’ in emission reports, rather 

than aggregated with other compounds 

as VOC. The final rule explained that 

the EPA was in the process of reviewing 

its overall VOC exemption policy and 

that the potential for retaining 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for compounds exempted 

from the definition of VOC in the future 

would be considered in that process. 

That process led to the development of 

the 2005 Interim Guidance, which 

encouraged the development of 

speciated inventories for highly reactive 

compounds and identified the voluntary 

submission of emissions estimates for 

exempt compounds as an option for 

further consideration, but did not 

recommend mandatory reporting 

requirements associated with future 

exemptions. Thus, TBAC was the only 

compound that was excluded from the 

VOC definition for purposes of emission 

controls but was still considered a VOC 

for purposes of recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

C. Petition To Remove Recordkeeping 

and Reporting Requirements From the 

TBAC Exemption 

The EPA received a petition from 

LyondellBasell in December 2009, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 9341 

3See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02- 

05/pdf/2015-02325.pdf. 

4Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment 

(2009). Report of the Peer Consultation of the 

Potential Risk of Health Effects from Exposure to 

Tertiary-Butyl Acetate, January 7–8, 2009, Northern 

Kentucky University METS Center, Erlanger, 

Kentucky, Volumes I and II, http://www.tera.org/

Peer/TBAC/index.html. 

5Luo, Dongmin, et al. (2006) Environmental 

Impact Assessment of Tertiary-Butyl Acetate, Staff 

Report, Sacramento: California Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, January 

2006, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/

tbacf.pdf;http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/

tbaca1.pdf; http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/

reactivity/tbaca2.pdf; and Budroe, John D., et al 

(2015) Tertiary Butyl Acetate Inhalation Cancer 

Unit Risk Factors, Appendix B, Public Review Draft 

August 2015. California Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment, http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/pdf/

PublicReviewDraftTBAc_URF081415.pdf. 

6See http://www.epa.gov/iris/publicmeeting/iris_

bimonthly-dec2013/mtg_docs.htm#etbe. 

which was re-affirmed in November 

2011, requesting the removal of 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements from the final rule to 

exempt TBAC from the regulatory VOC 

definition. LyondellBasell contends that 

the emissions reporting requirements 

are redundant and present an 

unnecessary burden. In 2015, the EPA 

issued a proposed rule (80 FR 6481, 

February 5, 2015) 3 in order to relieve 

manufacturers and users from 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that were part of the 2004 

Final Rule. 

III. The EPA’s Assessment of the 

Petition 

In most cases, when a negligibly 

reactive VOC is exempted from the 

definition of VOC, emissions of that 

compound are no longer recorded, 

collected, or reported to states or the 

EPA as part of VOC emissions. When 

the EPA exempted TBAC from the VOC 

definition for purposes of control 

requirements in the 2004 Final Rule, the 

EPA created a new category of 

compounds and a new reporting 

requirement that required that 

emissions of TBAC be reported 

separately by states and, in turn, by 

industry. However, the EPA did not 

issue any guidance on how TBAC 

emissions should be tracked and 

reported, and implementation of this 

requirement by states has been 

inconsistent. A few states have modified 

their rules and emissions inventory 

processes to track TBAC emissions 

separately and provide that information 

to the EPA. Others have included TBAC 

with other undifferentiated VOC in their 

emissions inventories. Thus, the data 

that have been reported to date as a 

result of these requirements are 

incomplete and inconsistent. In 

addition, the EPA has not established 

protocols for receiving and analyzing 

TBAC emissions data collected under 

the requirements of the 2004 Final Rule. 

Although the reactivity of TBAC and 

other negligibly reactive compounds is 

low, if emitted in large quantities, they 

could still contribute significantly to 

ozone formation in some locations. 

However, without speciated emissions 

estimates or extensive speciated 

hydrocarbon measurements, it is 

difficult to assess the impacts of any one 

exempted compound or even the 

cumulative impact of all of the 

exempted compounds. 

In the 2004 Final Rule, the EPA stated 

the primary objective of the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for TBAC was to address 

these cumulative impacts of ‘‘negligibly 

reactive’’ compounds and suggested that 

future exempt compounds may also be 

subject to such requirements. However, 

such requirements have not been 

included in any other proposed or final 

VOC exemptions since the TBAC 

decision. Having high quality data on 

TBAC emissions alone is unlikely to be 

very useful in assessing the cumulative 

impacts of these compounds on ozone 

formation. Thus, the requirements are 

not achieving their primary objective to 

inform more accurate photochemical 

modeling in support of SIP submissions. 

In the 2004 Final Rule, EPA also 

noted that recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements were justified in light of 

the continuing efforts to characterize 

long-term health risks associated with 

TBAC and its metabolite tertiary-butyl 

alcohol (TBA). Since the rule was 

finalized, those efforts have resulted in 

at least two studies regarding the longterm health risks associated with TBAC 

and TBA. LyondellBasell performed 

additional toxicity testing and a health 

risk assessment and submitted the peerconsultation results to the EPA in 2009.4

In addition, in 2006, the state of 

California published its own assessment 

of the potential health effects associated 

with TBA and TBAC.5 Also, the EPA is 

currently in the process of assessing the 

evidence for health risks from TBA 

through its Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) program.6 This is the first 

IRIS assessment for TBA. A draft of this 

assessment is expected to be released for 

public comment later this year. 

However, the existing toxicity 

information being examined in the IRIS 

assessment does not rely on any of the 

data collected through the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements at issue in this rule, and, 

thus, continuation of those requirements 

does not appear relevant to any likely 

future determinations about the health 

risks associated with TBAC or TBA. 

IV. Public Comments 

The EPA received five comments on 

the proposed rule referenced above from 

industry in support of this final action. 

No adverse comments were received. 

V. Final Action 

The EPA is removing the 

recordkeeping, emissions reporting, 

photochemical dispersion modeling and 

inventory requirements for TBAC. 

There is no evidence that TBAC is 

being used at levels that would cause 

concern for ozone formation. 

Additionally, the EPA believes these 

requirements, which are unique among 

all VOC-exempt compounds, are of 

limited utility because they do not 

provide sufficient information to judge 

the cumulative impacts of exempted 

compounds, and because the data have 

not been consistently collected and 

reported. Because these requirements 

are not addressing any of the concerns 

as they were intended, the EPA is 

removing the requirements for TBAC to 

relieve industry and states of the 

associated information collection 

burden. 

This final action removes 

recordkeeping, emissions reporting, 

photochemical dispersion modeling and 

inventory requirements related to the 

use of TBAC. This action does not affect 

the existing exclusion of TBAC from the 

regulatory definition of VOC for 

purposes of emission limits and control 

requirements. 

We note that removal of the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements does not indicate that the 

EPA has reached final conclusions 

about all aspects of the health effects 

posed by the use of TBAC or its 

metabolite TBA. The EPA is currently 

awaiting completion of the IRIS 

assessment on the potential risks 

involved with TBA and its toxicity. If it 

becomes clear that action is warranted 

due to the health risks of direct 

exposure to TBA or TBAC, the EPA will 

consider the range of authorities at its 

disposal to mitigate these risks 

appropriately. 

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 and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
9342 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. It does not contain any new 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements. This action removes 

recordkeeping, emissions reporting, 

photochemical dispersion modeling and 

inventory requirements related to use of 

TBAC. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the TBAC final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. 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, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. This action 

removes recordkeeping, emissions 

reporting, photochemical dispersion 

modeling and inventory requirements 

related to use of TBAC. We have, 

therefore, concluded that this action 

will relieve regulatory burden for all 

directly regulated small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

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. In fact, this 

should reduce the burden on states. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This final action removes 

existing emission inventory reporting 

and other requirements that uniquely 

apply to TBAC among all VOC-exempt 

compounds. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because the EPA does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action removes recordkeeping, 

emissions reporting, photochemical 

dispersion modeling and inventory 

requirements related to use of TBAC. It 

does not affect the existing exclusion of 

TBAC from the regulatory definition of 

VOC for purposes of emission limits and 

control requirements. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority and Low-Income 

Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome or indigenous populations. The 

EPA did not conduct an environmental 

analysis for this rule because the EPA 

does not believe that removing the 

unique reporting requirements will lead 

to substantial and predictable changes 

in the use of TBAC in and near 

particular communities. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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: February 17, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 51 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. 

■ 2. Section 51.100 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (s)(1); and 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(s)(5). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 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); 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 9343 

1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane 

(HFC-245ea); 1,1,1,2,3- 

pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb); 

1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC245fa); 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 (HCFC123a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4- 

methoxy-butane (C4F9OCH3 or HFE7100); 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); 

methyl formate (HCOOCH3); 

1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3- 

methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane 

(HFE-7300); propylene carbonate; 

dimethyl carbonate; trans-1,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoropropene; HCF2OCF2H (HFE134); HCF2OCF2OCF2H (HFE-236cal2); 

HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (HFE-338pcc13); 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (H-Galden 

1040x or H-Galden ZT 130 (or 150 or 

180)); trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-ene; 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene; 2- 

amino-2-methyl-1-propanol; t-butyl 

acetate; and perfluorocarbon 

compounds which fall into these 

classes: 

* * * * * 

(5) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–04072 Filed 2–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0369; FRL–9935–54– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of 

Administrative Rules, R307–300 

Series; Area Source Rules for 

Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval and 

finalizing the conditional approval of 

portions of the fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

and other general rule revisions 

submitted by the State of Utah. The 

revisions affect the Utah Division of 

Administrative Rules (DAR), R307–300 

Series; Requirements for Specific 

Locations. The revisions had 

submission dates of: February 2, 2012, 

May 9, 2013, June 8, 2013, February 18, 

2014, April 17, 2014, May 20, 2014, July 

10, 2014, August 6, 2014, and December 

9, 2014. These area source rules control 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors, sulfur dioxides (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). Our 

approval will make these rules federally 

enforceable. Additionally, EPA is 

finalizing approval of the State’s 

reasonably available control measure 

(RACM) determinations for the rule 

revisions that pertain to the PM2.5 SIP. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0369. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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 at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6602, 

ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA strengthened the level of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), lowering 

the primary and secondary standards 

from 65 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3), the 1997 standard, to 35 mg/m3. 

On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), 

EPA designated three nonattainment 

areas in Utah for the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. These are the Salt 

Lake City, UT; Provo, UT; and Logan, 

UT-ID nonattainment areas. The State of 

Utah has made a number of SIP 

submittals intended to address the 

requirements under part D of title I of 

the CAA for these PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. Among those requirements are 

those in sections 172(c)(1) and 

189(a)(1)(C) regarding reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT). 

On August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51499), 

EPA proposed to approve or 

conditionally approve a number of 

RACM components in the PM2.5

Moderate area SIP submitted by the 

State. Our proposed notice and 

associated technical support document 

(TSD) give details on EPA’s 

interpretation of the RACM 

requirements under part D and our 

evaluation of the State’s submittals. 

Specifically, the RACM components 

consist of area source rules found in 

Utah’s submittals dated February 2, 

2012, May 9, 2013, June 8, 2013, 

February 18, 2014, April 17, 2014, May 

20, 2014, July 10, 2014, August 6, 2014, 

and December 9, 2014. These submittals 

contained various revisions to the DAR, 

Title R307—Environmental Quality, set 

of rules, most of which are applicable to 

the Utah SIP for PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. The new rules or revised rules we 

are addressing in this final rule were 

provided by Utah in the nine different 

submissions listed above, and these 

rules are: R307–101–2, General 

Requirements: Definitions; R307–303, 

Commercial Cooking; R307–307, Road 

Salting and Sanding; R307–312, 

Aggregate Processing Operations for 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas; R307–328, 

Gasoline Transfer and Storage; R307– 

335, Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning 

Operations; R307–342, Adhesives and 

Sealants; R307–343 Emissions 

Standards for Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations; R307–344, 

Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; R307– 

345, Fabric and Vinyl Coatings; R307– 

346, Metal Furniture Surface Coatings; 

R307–347, Large Appliance Surface 

Coatings; R307–348, Magnet Wire 

Coatings; R307–349, Flat Wood Panel 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES