Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3437 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0948; FRL–8763–7] 

RIN 2060–AN75 

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of 

Volatile Organic Compounds— 

Exclusion of Propylene Carbonate and 

Dimethyl Carbonate 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action revises EPA’s 

definition of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) for purposes of 

preparing state implementation plans 

(SIPs) to attain the national ambient air 

quality standard for ozone under Title I 

of the Clean Air Act (Act). This revision 

adds the compounds propylene 

carbonate and dimethyl carbonate to the 

list of compounds which are excluded 

from the definition of VOC on the basis 

that these compounds make a negligible 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0948. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0948, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0948 is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William L. Johnson, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Policy Division, Mail code 

C539–01, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, telephone (919) 541–5245.; fax 

number: 919–541–0824; e-mail address: 

Johnson.WilliamL@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be an entity affected by this 

policy change if you use or emit 

propylene carbonate or dimethyl 

carbonate. States which have programs 

to control VOC emissions will also be 

affected by this change. 

Category Examples of affected entities 

Industry .. Industries that make and use 

coatings, adhesives, inks or 

which perform paint stripping or 

pesticide application. 

States .... States that control VOC. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware of that could potentially be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table could also 

be affected. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. This 

action has no substantial direct effects 

on industry because it does not impose 

any new mandates on these entities, but, 

to the contrary, removes two chemical 

compounds from the regulatory 

definition of VOC, and therefore from 

regulation for federal purposes. 

B. How is this preamble organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

Outline 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How is this preamble organized? 

II. Background 

A. Propylene Carbonate 

B. Dimethyl Carbonate 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12848: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

II. Background 

Tropospheric ozone, commonly 

known as smog, occurs when VOCs and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the 

atmosphere. Because of the harmful 

health effects of ozone, EPA and state 

governments limit the amount of VOCs 

and NOX that can be released into the 

atmosphere. The VOCs are those organic 

compounds of carbon which form ozone 

through atmospheric photochemical 

reactions. Different VOCs have different 

levels of reactivity—that is, they do not 

react to form ozone at the same speed 

or do not form ozone to the same extent. 

Some VOCs react slowly, and changes 

in their emissions have limited effects 

on local or regional ozone pollution 

episodes. It has been EPA’s policy that 

organic compounds with a negligible 

level of reactivity should be excluded 

from the regulatory definition of VOC, 

so as to focus VOC control efforts on 

compounds that do significantly 

increase ozone concentrations. The EPA 

also believes that exempting such 

compounds creates an incentive for 

industry to use negligibly reactive 

compounds in place of more highly 

reactive compounds that are regulated 

as VOCs. The EPA lists these negligibly 

reactive compounds in its regulations 

(at 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and excludes them 

from the definition of VOCs. 

Since 1977, EPA has used the 

reactivity of ethane as the threshold for 

determining negligible reactivity. 

Compounds that are less reactive than, 

or equally reactive to, ethane under the 

assumed conditions may be deemed 

negligibly reactive. Compounds that are 

more reactive than ethane continue to 

be considered reactive VOCs and 

therefore subject to control 

requirements. The selection of ethane as 

the threshold compound was based on 

a series of smog chamber experiments 

that underlay the 1977 policy. 

In the past, EPA has considered three 

different metrics to compare the 

reactivity of a specific compound to that 

of ethane: (i) The reaction rate constant 

with the hydroxyl radical (known as 

kOH), (ii) maximum incremental 

reactivities (MIR) expressed on a 

reactivity per gram basis, and (iii) MIR 

expressed on a reactivity per mole basis. 

Table 1 presents these three reactivity 

metrics for ethane and for the two 

compounds discussed in this rule. 

Differences between these three metrics 

are discussed below. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
3438 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1Basil Dimitriades, ‘‘Scientific Basis of an 

Improved EPA Policy on Control of Organic 

Emissions for Ambient Ozone Reduction.’’ Journal 

of the Air & Waste Management Association, 

49:831–838, July 1999. 

TABLE 1—REACTIVITIES OF ETHANE AND COMPOUNDS CONSIDERED FOR EXEMPTION

Compound kOH

(cm3/molecule-sec) 

MIR 

(g O3/mole VOC) 

MIR 

(g O3/gramVOC) 

Ethane .................................................................... 2.4 × 10¥13 ............................................................ 8.12 0 .27 

Propylene carbonate .............................................. 6.9 × 10¥13 ............................................................ 27.56 0 .27 

Dimethyl carbonate ................................................ 3.49 × 10¥13 .......................................................... 5.04 0 .056 

Notes: 

1. kOH value for ethane is from: R. 

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

Crowley, R. F. Hampson, Jr., R. G. Hynes, M. 

E. Jenkin, J. A. Kerr, M. J. Rossi and J. Troe 

(2004), Summary of Evaluated Kinetic and 

Photochemical Data for Atmospheric 

Chemistry 

2. kOH value for propylene carbonate is 

reported in: W.P.L. Carter, D. Luo, I.L. 

Malkina, E.C. Tuazon, S.M. Aschmann, and 

R. Atkinson (July 8, 1996), ‘‘Investigation of 

the Atmospheric Ozone Formation Potential 

of t-butyl Alcohol, N-Methyl Pyrrolidinone 

and Propylene Carbonate.’’ University of 

California—Riverside. ftp://ftp.cert.ucr.edu/ 

pub/carter/pubs/arcorpt.pdf. 

3. kOH value for dimethyl carbonate is 

reported in: Y. Katrib, G. Deiber, P. Mirabel, 

S. LeCalve, C. George, A. Mellouki, and G. Le 

Bras (2002), ‘‘Atmospheric loss processes of 

dimethyl and diethyl carbonate,’’ J. Atmos. 

Chem., 43: 151–174. 

4. All maximum incremental reactivities or 

MIR (g O3/g VOC) values are from: W. P. L. 

Carter, ‘‘Development of the SAPRC–07 

Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone 

Reactivity Scales,’’ Appendix B, July 7, 2008. 

This may be found at http:// 

www.engr.ucr.edu/∼carter/SAPRC/ 

saprc07.pdf. These values have been revised 

slightly from those given in the proposal 

notice (72 FR 55717). 

5. MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were 

calculated from the MIR (g O3/g VOC) values 

by determining the number of moles per 

gram of the relevant organic compound. 

The kOH is the reaction rate constant 

of the compound with the OH radical in 

the air. This reaction is typically the 

first step in a series of chemical 

reactions by which a compound breaks 

down in the air and participates in the 

ozone forming process. If this step is 

slow, the compound will likely not form 

ozone at a very fast rate. The kOH values 

have long been used by EPA as a 

measure of photochemical reactivity 

and ozone forming activity, and they 

have been the basis for most of EPA’s 

previous exclusions of negligibly 

reactive compounds. The kOH metric is 

inherently molar, i.e., it measures the 

rate at which molecules react. 

The MIR values, both by mole and by 

mass, are more recently developed 

measures of photochemical reactivity 

derived from a computer-based 

photochemical model. These measures 

consider the complete ozone forming 

activity of a compound, not merely the 

first reaction step. Further explanation 

of the MIR metric can be found in: W. 

P. L. Carter, ‘‘Development of Ozone 

Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic 

Compositions,’’ Journal of the Air & 

Waste Management Association, Vol 44, 

881–899, July 1994. 

The MIR values are usually expressed 

either as grams of ozone formed per 

mole of VOC (molar basis) or as grams 

of ozone formed per gram of VOC (mass 

basis). For comparing the reactivities of 

two compounds, using the molar MIR 

values considers an equal number of 

molecules of the two compounds. 

Alternatively, using the mass MIR 

values compares an equal mass of the 

two compounds, which will involve 

different numbers of molecules, 

depending on the relative molecular 

weights. The molar MIR comparison is 

consistent with the original smog 

chamber experiments, which compared 

equal molar concentrations of 

individual VOCs, that underlie the 

original selection of ethane as the 

threshold compound. It is also 

consistent with previous reactivity 

determinations based on inherently 

molar kOH values. The mass MIR 

comparison is consistent with how MIR 

values and other reactivity metrics are 

applied in reactivity-based emission 

limits, specifically the California Air 

Resources Board rule for aerosol 

coatings (see http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

consprod/regs/apt.pdf ). 

Given the relatively low molecular 

weight of ethane, use of the mass basis 

tends to result in more VOCs falling into 

the ‘‘negligibly reactive’’ class versus 

the molar basis. This means that, in 

some cases, a compound might be 

considered less reactive than ethane and 

eligible for VOC exemption under the 

mass basis but not under the molar 

basis. One of the compounds considered 

in this action falls into this situation, 

where the molar MIR value is greater 

than that of ethane, but the mass MIR 

value is less than or equal to that of 

ethane. This compound is propylene 

carbonate. 

The EPA has considered the choice 

between a molar or mass basis for the 

comparison to ethane in past 

rulemakings and guidance. The design 

of the VOC exemption policy, including 

the choice between a mass and mole 

basis, has been critiqued in the 

published literature.1 Most recently, in 

‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of 

Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone 

State Implementation Plans’’ published 

on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54046), 

EPA stated: 

‘‘* * * a comparison to ethane on a mass 

basis strikes the right balance between a 

threshold that is low enough to capture 

compounds that significantly affect ozone 

concentrations and a threshold that is high 

enough to exempt some compounds that may 

usefully substitute for more highly reactive 

compounds. * * * When reviewing 

compounds that have been suggested for 

VOC exempt status, EPA will continue to 

compare them to ethane using kOH expressed 

on a molar basis and MIR values expressed 

on a mass basis.’’ 

Relying on a comparison of mass MIR 

values consistent with this guidance, 

EPA proposed to revise its definition of 

VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to add 

propylene carbonate and dimethyl 

carbonate to the list of compounds that 

are exempt because they are negligibly 

reactive since they are equal to or less 

reactive than ethane on a mass basis. 

For propylene carbonate, EPA invited 

comment on the alternative use of a 

molar basis for the comparison of these 

compounds to ethane. 

The technical rationale for 

recommending an exemption for each of 

the individual compounds is given 

below: 

A. Propylene Carbonate 

Huntsman Corporation submitted a 

petition to EPA on July 27, 1999, 

requesting that propylene carbonate be 

exempted from VOC control based on its 

low reactivity relative to ethane. 

Propylene carbonate (CAS registry 

number 108–32–7) is an odorless nonviscous clear liquid with a low vapor 

pressure (0.023 mm Hg at 20( C) and 

low evaporation rate compared to many 

other commonly used organic solvents. 

It has been used in cosmetics, as an 

adhesive component in food packaging, 

as a solvent for plasticizers and 

synthetic fibers and polymers, and as a 

solvent for aerial pesticide application. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3439 

2The MIR values used for this rule may be found 

in Appendix B of the July 7, 2008 report by William 

P.L. Carter ‘‘Development of the SAPRC–07 

Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone 

Reactivity Scales.’’ This report may be found at 

http://www.engr.ucr.edu/carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf 

or in the docket for this rule. 

Huntsman submitted several pieces of 

information to support its petition, all of 

which have been added to the docket for 

this action. One of these pieces of 

information was ‘‘Investigation of the 

Atmospheric Ozone Formation Potential 

of t-butyl Alcohol, N-Methyl 

Pyrrolidinone and Propylene 

Carbonate’’ by William P. L. Carter, 

Dongmin Luo, Irina L. Malkina, Ernesto 

C. Tuazon, Sara M. Aschmann, and 

Roger Atkinson, University of California 

at Riverside, July 8, 1996. Table 8 of that 

reference lists the MIR for propylene 

carbonate (on a gram basis) as 1.43 times 

higher than that of ethane. However, in 

Table 1 above, EPA has shown a 2007 

MIR value that was taken from more 

recent 2007 data from Dr. Carter’s Web 

site. This 2007 MIR value is lower than 

that of ethane on a mass basis. 

From the data in Table 1, it can be 

seen that propylene carbonate has a 

higher kOH value than ethane, meaning 

that it initially reacts more quickly in 

the atmosphere than ethane. A molecule 

of propylene carbonate is also more 

reactive than a molecule of ethane, as 

shown by the molar MIR (g O3/mole 

VOC) values, since equal numbers of 

moles have equal numbers of molecules. 

However, a gram of propylene carbonate 

is less reactive, or creates less ozone on 

the day of its emission to the 

atmosphere, than a gram of ethane. This 

is because propylene carbonate has a 

molecular weight (102), which is over 

three times that of ethane (30), thus 

requiring less than a third the number 

of molecules of propylene carbonate to 

weigh a gram than the number of 

molecules of ethane needed to weigh a 

gram. 

Based on the mass MIR (g O3/g VOC) 

value for propylene carbonate being 

equal to or less than that of ethane, EPA 

finds that propylene carbonate is 

‘‘negligibly reactive’’ and therefore 

exempt for the regulatory definition of 

VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). EPA took 

comments on whether the comparison 

of propylene carbonate to ethane should 

instead be made on the basis of the 

molar MIR (g O3/mole VOC) value. None 

of the comments received during the 

public comment period opposed using 

the g O3/g VOC basis. In fact, the 

comments which addressed that issue 

supported the use of the MIR on a g O3/ 

g VOC basis for granting exemptions. 

B. Dimethyl Carbonate 

The EPA received a petition from 

Kowa America Corporation on July 29, 

2004 seeking an exemption from the 

regulatory definition of VOC for 

dimethyl carbonate. This petition 

asserted that dimethyl carbonate (DMC) 

is less photochemically reactive than 

ethane and asked for the exemption on 

that basis. 

Dimethyl carbonate (CAS registry 

number 616–38–6) may be used as a 

solvent in paints and coatings. The 

petitioner anticipated that it might be 

used in waterborne paints and 

adhesives because it is partially water 

soluble. It is also used as a methylation 

and carbonylation agent in organic 

synthesis. It can be used as a fuel 

additive. 

In support of its petition, the 

petitioner presented articles which give 

kOH and MIR values for the compound. 

These articles have been placed in the 

docket. 

As shown in Table 1, DMC has a 

greater kOH value than ethane, which 

indicates that DMC will likely initially 

react more quickly in the atmosphere. 

However, the MIR values for DMC 

calculated on either a mass or mole 

basis are less than that of ethane, which 

indicates lower reactivity overall. Based 

on these data, EPA finds that DMC is 

‘‘negligibly reactive’’ and therefore 

exempt from the regulatory definition of 

VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). Because both 

the mass and molar MIR values of DMC 

are less than those of ethane, this 

chemical meets EPA’s exemption 

criteria under either MIR metric. 

III. Response to Comments 

EPA proposed these actions on 

October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55717) and took 

public comment on the proposal. Here 

is a summary of the comments received 

during the public comment period and 

EPA’s response. There was no request 

for a public hearing on the proposal and 

none was held. 

There were four comment letters 

submitted to the docket during the 

public comment period. One comment 

letter was from an individual. Two were 

from chemical companies. One 

comment letter was from a trade 

association. The comments are 

summarized below. 

Comment: The Web site reference for 

the latest MIR values contained an error. 

The site which was listed as http:// 

pah.cert.ucr.edu/carter/SAPRC/ 

scales07.xls should have been http:// 

pah.cert.ucr.edu/∼carter/SAPRC/ 

scales07.xls. 

Response: We left out the ∼ sign in the 

Web address which made it incorrect. 

The latest MIR data which is used in 

this final rule may be found in 

Appendix B of the July 7, 2008 report 

by William P. L. Carter ‘‘Development of 

the SAPRC–07 Chemical Mechanism 

and Updated Ozone Reactivity Scales.’’ 

This report may be found at http:// 

www.engr.ucr.edu/∼carter/SAPRC/ 

saprc07.pdf. 

Comment: One commenter corrected 

certain technical information about the 

evaporation rate of dimethyl carbonate 

which was listed in the docket. 

Response: This correction is noted, 

but this minor change did not impact 

whether or not EPA should finalize the 

exemption petition. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the use of the latest MIR values for 

making VOC exemption determinations. 

There were no comments opposing the 

use of the latest MIR values. 

Response: EPA acknowledged recent 

MIR values which were made public 

shortly before the proposal to grant VOC 

exemption to propylene carbonate and 

dimethyl carbonate, but based the 

proposal on older MIR values which 

had been previously published. EPA is 

using the latest MIR values for this final 

rule.2 The use of the newer MIR values 

does not change the conclusion about 

the VOC exemption of propylene 

carbonate and dimethyl carbonate. 

Comment: The two industry 

commenters, and the trade association 

comment letter each expressed support 

for the VOC exemption of propylene 

carbonate and dimethyl carbonate. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

support and notes that there were no 

comments opposing these exemptions. 

Comment: Three commenters 

opposed separate tracking and reporting 

for propylene carbonate and dimethyl 

carbonate. Two of these commenters 

also expressed opposition for separate 

tracking for any VOC exempt 

compounds. 

Response: Although the rule preamble 

encourages record keeping for 

propylene carbonate and dimethyl 

carbonate, there is no requirement for 

this in the rule itself. Record keeping for 

other exempt compounds is not the 

subject of this rulemaking, so comments 

about that are not relevant to this action. 

Comment: Three of the commenters 

support the use of the mass-based MIR 

approach versus the mole-based 

approach. One of the commenters 

submitted as part of his comments a 

November 15, 1999 letter written by 

William P.L. Carter supporting the use 

of impact per mass as an appropriate 

basis for comparing ozone reactivities 

when making VOC exemption 

decisions. This Carter letter had 

previously been submitted to EPA as 

part of the tertiary butyl acetate VOC 

exemption rule making (69 FR 69298). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
3440 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

There were no comments opposing the 

use of the mass-based MIR approach. 

Response: EPA specifically requested 

comment on this subject for propylene 

carbonate since the mole based MIR 

value for that compound is higher than 

that of ethane and using the mole based 

MIR value would not allow the 

exemption for propylene carbonate. 

Because there were no comments 

opposed to the use of the mass based 

approach, EPA is proceeding to grant 

these exemptions on a mass based MIR 

basis in keeping with the September 13, 

2005 interim guidance on control of 

volatile organic compounds in ozone 

state implementation plans which says 

‘‘EPA will continue to compare them 

[i.e., compounds] to ethane using kOH

expressed on a molar basis and MIR 

values expressed on a mass basis.’’ 

Comment: One commenter, who was 

the petitioner for dimethyl carbonate, 

said that the company recommended 

exposure limit of 200 ppm time 

weighted average 8 hour for dimethyl 

carbonate is identical to that of methyl 

acetate, an existing VOC exempt 

solvent. This commenter also said that 

methyl acetate like DMC has the 

potential for hydrolyzing to form 

methanol in the body and therefore they 

would be similar in their toxicity 

profiles and safety handling 

requirements. The commenter also 

denied a statement in Hawley’s 

Condensed Chemical Dictionary that 

DMC is both toxic by inhalation and a 

strong irritant. 

Response: In the proposal, EPA said 

‘‘While EPA does not have information 

to suggest that the proposed exemptions 

could increase health risks due to 

possible toxicity of the exempted 

compounds, we invite the public to 

submit comments and additional 

information relevant to this issue.’’ The 

comments here are the only comments 

EPA received regarding health effects of 

these compounds. These comments 

have not led EPA to identify unusual 

health risks from the compounds. 

IV. Final Action 

This action is based on EPA’s review 

of the material in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2006–0948. The EPA hereby 

amends its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 

51.100(s) to exclude propylene 

carbonate and dimethyl carbonate from 

the regulatory definition of VOC for use 

in ozone SIPs and ozone controls for 

purposes of attaining the ozone national 

ambient air quality standard. 

The revised definition will also apply 

for purposes of any federal 

implementation plan for ozone 

nonattainment areas (see e.g., 40 CFR 

52.741(a)(3)). States are not obligated to 

exclude from control as a VOC those 

compounds that EPA has found to be 

negligibly reactive. However, if this 

action is made final, states should not 

include these compounds in their VOC 

emissions inventories for determining 

reasonable further progress under the 

Act (e.g., section 182(b)(1)) and may not 

take credit for controlling these 

compounds in their ozone control 

strategy. 

Excluding a compound from the 

regulatory definition of VOC may lead 

to changes in the amount of the exempt 

compound used and the types of 

applications in which the exempt 

compound is used. Although the final 

rule has no mandatory reporting 

requirements, EPA urges states to 

continue to inventory the emissions of 

these compounds for use in 

photochemical modeling. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action 

is deregulatory in nature and removes 

requirements rather than adds 

requirements. The regulation is a rule 

change that revises a definition of 

volatile organic compound and imposes 

no record keeping or reporting 

requirements. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other statue unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this action on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final action on small 

entities, I certify that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. This rule 

concerns only the definition of VOC and 

does not directly regulate any entities. 

The RFA analysis does not consider 

impacts on entities which the action in 

question does not regulate. See Motor & 

Equipment Manufacturers Ass’n v. 

Nichols, 142 F. 3d 449, 467 (D.C. Cir. 

1998); United Distribution Cos. v. FERC, 

88 F. 3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996), 

cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1224 (1997). 

Pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), I hereby certify that the rule will 

not have an impact on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Since this rule is deregulatory in nature 

and does not impose a mandate upon 

any source, this rule is not estimated to 

result in the expenditure by state, local 

and tribal governments or the private 

sector of $100 million in any 1 year. 

Therefore, the Agency has not prepared 

a budgetary impact statement or 

specifically addressed the selection of 

the least costly, most cost-effective, or 

least burdensome alternative. Because 

small governments will not be 

significantly or uniquely affected by this 

rule, the Agency is not required to 

develop a plan with regard to small 

governments. This action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of the UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. As discussed above, this 

final rule does not impose any new 

requirements on small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 3441 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the state, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This rule 

concerns only the definition of VOC. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

This action does not have any direct 

effects on Indian Tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This final rule is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 because it 

does not establish an environmental 

standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Further, 

we have concluded that this rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy 

effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This action does not involved 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The final rule amendment 

is deregulatory and does allow 

relaxation of the control measures on 

sources. However, this is not expected 

to lead to increased ozone formation 

since the compounds being exempted 

have been determined to have negligible 

photochemical reactivity. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States, Section 804 

exempts form section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

application; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties, 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding this action under section 801 

because this is a rule of particular 

applicability to manufacturers and users 

of these specific exempt chemical 

compounds. This action is not a ‘‘major 

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

Therefore, this rule will be effective on 

February 20, 2009. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: January 13, 2009. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ 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, 

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 is amended at the 

end of paragraph (s)(1) introductory text 

by removing the words ‘‘and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’ and adding in their 

place a semi-colon and the words 

‘‘propylene carbonate; dimethyl 

carbonate; and perfluorocarbon 

compounds which fall into these 

classes:’’. 

[FR Doc. E9–1150 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES