Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds--Exclusion of Compounds
Posted Date: 2007-10-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register: October 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 189)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 55717-55723]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01oc07-21]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948; FRL-8475-7]
RIN 2060-AN75

 
Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic 
Compounds--Exclusion of Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
revise 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 proposed revision would add compounds to the 
list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that 
these compounds make a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone 
formation. The compounds under consideration are propylene carbonate 
and dimethyl carbonate. The EPA is inviting comment on an alternative 
evaluation criteria for exempting one of these compounds (propylene 
carbonate), methods for tracking changes in the use and emissions of 
both of these compounds and their potential substitutes, and the 
potential for health risks that may result from this action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2007.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 
public hearing on or before October 16, 2007, we will hold a public 
hearing. Additional

[[Page 55718]]

information about the hearing would be published in a subsequent 
Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0948, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-rDocket@epa.gov.
     Fax: 202-566-9744.
     Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
Northwest, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room: 3334, 
Mail Code: 2822T, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0948. 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-
2006-0948. 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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, 

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, 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 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 
http://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. 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 Strategies and Standards 
Division, Mail code C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-5245.; fax number: 919-541-0824; e-mail address: 
Johnson.WilliamL@epa.gov.

    Public Hearing: To request a public hearing or information 
pertaining to a public hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela S. 
Long, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C504-03, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-0641, facsimile number (919) 541-5509, electronic 
e-mail address: long.pam@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be an entity potentially affected by this proposed 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 proposed 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information 
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.

[[Page 55719]]

     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

C. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Public Hearing?

    Persons interested in presenting oral testimony should contact Ms. 
Pamela S. Long, New Source Review Group, Air Quality Policy Division 
(C504-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0641, at least 2 days in 
advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the 
public hearing should also contact Ms. Long to verify the time, date, 
and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested 
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning 
these proposed changes.

D. 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    C. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Public Hearing?
    D. How Is This Preamble Organized?
II. Background
    A. Propylene Carbonate
    B. Dimethyl Carbonate
III. Proposed Action
IV. 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

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 proposed rule. 
Differences between these three metrics are discussed below.

                     Table 1.--Reactivities of Ethane and Compounds Considered for Exemption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    kOH (cm\3\/molecule-    MIR (g O3/mole      MIR (g O3/gram
                     Compound                               sec)                 VOC)                VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane...........................................          2.4 x 10-\13\                 9.3                0.31
Propylene carbonate..............................          6.9 x 10-\13\                25.5                0.25
Dimethyl carbonate...............................         3.49 x 10-\13\                5.31               0.059
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Web version, 2005 http://www.ibiblio.org/iupac-ki/summary/IUPACsumm_web_March2005.pdf
.

    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, ``Latest VOC Reactivity 
tabulations for SAPRC-99 Mechanism'' (updated 2/5/03) ftp://ftp.cert.ucr.edu/pub/carter/SAPRC99/r02tab.xls
.

    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

[[Page 55720]]

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 spray 
paints (see http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/regs/apt.pdf ).

    The choice of molar basis versus mass basis is significant. 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 proposal falls into this situation, 
where the molar MIR value is greater than that of ethane, but the mass 
MIR value is less than that of ethane. This compound is propylene 
carbonate.
    The EPA has considered the choice between a molar or mass basis for 
the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. The design 
of the VOC exemption policy, including the choice between a mass and 
mole basis, has been critiqued in the published literature.\1\ Most 
recently, in ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic 
Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' published on September 
13, 2005 (70 FR 54046), EPA stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Basil Dimitriades, ``Scientific Basis of an Improved EPA 
Policy on Control of Organic Emissions for Ambient Ozone 
Reduction.'' Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 
49:831-838, July 1999.

    `` * * * a comparison to ethane on a mass basis strikes the 
right balance between a threshold that is low enough to capture 
compounds that significantly affect ozone concentrations and a 
threshold that is high enough to exempt some compounds that may 
usefully substitute for more highly reactive compounds. * * * When 
reviewing compounds that have been suggested for VOC exempt status, 
EPA will continue to compare them to ethane using kOH 
expressed on a molar basis and MIR values expressed on a mass 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
basis.''

    Relying on a comparison of mass MIR values consistent with this 
guidance, EPA is proposing 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 
because they are equal to or less reactive than ethane on a mass basis. 
For the first of these compounds, EPA is inviting comment on the 
alternative use of a molar basis for the comparison of these compounds 
to ethane.
    EPA has become aware of revised MIR values posted by Dr. W.P.L. 
Carter on his Web site \2\ as part of a report for the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) which indicate changes in the reactivity values 
of the two compounds being proposed for exemption as well as for that 
of ethane. In particular, the new data indicate that propylene 
carbonate has an MIR value that is essentially equal to that of ethane 
on a gram basis. These new MIR values are shown in Table 2 below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These new MIR values may be found at http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/carter/SAPRC/scales07.xls
.

                    Table 2.--2007 Revised MIR Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Compound                       MIR (g O3/gram VOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane.............................................                0.26
Propylene carbonate................................                0.26
Dimethyl carbonate.................................                0.055
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA understands that these numbers were produced by Carter under a 
contract with the CARB and are reported in the August 31, 2007 report 
``Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone 
Reactivity Scales.'' CARB will consider this report as part of their 
investigation of whether MIR values in CARB regulations need to be 
revised. EPA is not relying on these new MIR values for this proposal, 
but we do not think the new MIR values would prohibit us from 
proceeding with the exemptions because the two compounds being proposed 
for exemption would still be equal to or less than ethane in 
reactivity. We invite comments on the whether EPA should use this new 
data for the VOC exemptions being considered in this notice.
    The technical rationale for recommending an exemption for each of 
the individual compounds is given below:

A. Propylene Carbonate

    Huntsman Corporation submitted a petition to EPA on July 27, 1999, 
requesting that propylene carbonate be exempted from VOC control based 
on its low reactivity relative to ethane.
    Propylene carbonate (CAS registry number 108-32-7) is an odorless 
non-viscous clear liquid with a low vapor pressure (0.023 mmHg at 20 
[deg]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.
    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 2003 MIR value that was taken from more recent 
2003 data from Dr. Carter's Web site. This 2003 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

[[Page 55721]]

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 is proposing 
to find that propylene carbonate is ``negligibly reactive'' and 
therefore exempt for the regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR 
51.100(s). EPA is inviting comment 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. In that case, the 
petition to grant propylene carbonate a status of ``negligibly 
reactive'' would be denied.

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 the kOH and MIR values for the compound shown in Table 
1. 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 proposes 
to find that DMC is ``negligible reactivity'' 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 would meet EPA's exemption criteria under either MIR metric.

III. Proposed Action

    This proposed action is based on EPA's review of the material in 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948. The EPA hereby proposes to amend 
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 this 
proposal has no mandatory reporting requirements, EPA urges States to 
continue to inventory the emissions of these compounds for use in 
photochemical modeling. Further, EPA invites comment on methods for 
tracking the uses and emissions of these two compounds, as well as any 
more reactive compounds for which these two compounds may substitute.
    The EPA believes that the proposed exemptions will help to decrease 
exposures to ground-level ozone by encouraging the use of exempted 
negligibly reactive compounds in lieu of VOCs and thereby focusing air 
quality management programs on VOC emissions that contribute most to 
ozone formation. Although compounds are defined as negligibly reactive 
solely on the basis of their contribution to ground-level ozone 
formation, EPA is interested in evaluating whether the proposed 
exemptions could increase public health risks if these negligibly 
reactive compounds were toxic themselves. 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.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
this action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel 
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any 
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 
the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any information collection 
requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. It does not impose any recordkeeping or 
reporting requirement burden.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply, with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency does not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq. requires the identification of potentially adverse impacts 
of Federal regulations upon small business entities. The Act 
specifically requires the completion of a RFA analysis in those 
instances where the regulation would impose a substantial impact on a 
significant number of small entities. Because this

[[Page 55722]]

rulemaking imposes no adverse economic impacts, an analysis has not 
been conducted.
    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I have determined that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. 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

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Since this rule is deregulatory in nature and does not impose a 
mandate upon any source, this rule is not estimated to result in the 
expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments or the private 
sector of $100 million in any 1 year. Therefore, the Agency has not 
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the 
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or 
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a 
plan with regard to small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action addressing the exemption of two chemical compounds from 
the VOC definition does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action does not impose any 
new mandates on State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 
and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA 
and State and local governments, EPA is specifically soliciting 
comments on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Today's action does not have any direct effects on Indian Tribes. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of 
Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and Tribal governments, EPA invites comments 
on the proposed rule from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in

[[Page 55723]]

Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to 
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this 
action present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
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. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not 
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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.

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: September 25, 2007.
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 proposed to be 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.

Sec.  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. E7-19324 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P