Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds - Exclusion of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP)
Posted Date: 2014-03-27T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17037-17043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06790]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775; FRL-9906-73-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR92

Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory Definition of Volatile 
Organic Compounds--Exclusion of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct 
final action to revise the regulatory definition of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This direct final 
action adds 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (also known as AMP; CAS number 
124-68-5) to the list of compounds excluded from the regulatory 
definition of VOCs on the basis that this compound makes a negligible 
contribution to tropospheric ozone formation.

DATES: This rule is effective June 25, 2014 without further notice, 
unless the EPA receives adverse comment on this action by May 27, 2014. 
If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the final 
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0775, by one of the following methods:
     Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments: 
www.regulations.gov.
     Email: a-and-r-Docket@epamail.epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775.
     Fax: 202-566-9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0775.
     Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William Jefferson 
Clinton, West Building Room: 3334, Mail Code: 28221T, Washington, DC 
20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0775. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov, 
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or 
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not 
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use 
of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any 
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public 
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

[[Page 17038]]

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., William Jefferson Clinton West Building, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Souad Benromdhane, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts 
Division, Mail Code C539-07, Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-4359; fax number: (919) 
541-5315; email address: benromdhane.souad@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Background
    A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy
    B. Petition To List AMP as an Exempt Compound
IV. The EPA's Assessment of the Petition
    A. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone
    B. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health or the Environment
    C. Climate Impacts
    D. Conclusions
V. Direct Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

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

    The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior 
proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and 
anticipate no adverse comment. This action revises the EPA's regulatory 
definition of VOCs for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS 
for ozone under title I of the CAA. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' 
section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposed rule to make this revision to the 
regulatory definition of VOCs if adverse comments are received on the 
parallel proposal or this direct final rule. We will not institute a 
second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting must do so at this time. For further information about 
commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this 
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public 
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this direct final rule include, 
but are not necessarily limited to, state and local air pollution 
control agencies that adopt and implement regulations to control air 
emissions of VOCs; and industries manufacturing and/or using pigments 
in water-based coatings, additives in metalworking fluids and in food 
contact paper, neutralizers in personal care products, and 
intermediates in chemical synthesis.

III. Background

A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere in the 
presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, 
the EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be 
released into the atmosphere. The VOCs are those organic compounds of 
carbon which form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. 
Different VOCs have different levels of reactivity. That is, they do 
not react to form ozone at the same speed or do not form ozone to the 
same extent. Some VOCs react slowly or form less ozone; therefore, 
changes in their emissions have limited effects on local or regional 
ozone pollution episodes. It has been the EPA's policy that organic 
compounds with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from 
the regulatory definition of VOCs so as to focus VOCs control efforts 
on compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. The 
EPA also believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive 
for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more 
highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. The EPA lists 
compounds that it has determined to be negligibly reactive in its 
regulations as being excluded from the regulatory definition of VOCs. 
(40 CFR 51.100(s)).
    The CAA requires the regulation of VOCs for various purposes. 
Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that the EPA has the authority to 
define the meaning of ``VOC,'' and hence what compounds shall be 
treated as VOCs for regulatory purposes. The policy of excluding 
negligibly reactive compounds from the regulatory definition of VOCs 
was first laid out in the ``Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile 
Organic Compounds'' (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977) and was supplemented 
subsequently with the ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic 
Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' (70 FR 54046, September 
13, 2005). The EPA uses the reactivity of ethane as the threshold for 
determining whether a compound has negligible reactivity. Compounds 
that are less reactive than, or equally reactive to, ethane under 
certain assumed conditions may be deemed negligibly reactive and 
therefore suitable for exemption from the regulatory definition of 
VOCs. Compounds that are more reactive than ethane continue to be 
considered VOCs for regulatory purposes and therefore are subject to 
control requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound 
was based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the 
1977 policy.
    The EPA has used three different metrics to compare the reactivity 
of a specific compound to that of ethane: (i) The reaction rate 
constant (known as kOH) with the hydroxyl radical (OH); (ii) 
the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) on a reactivity per unit mass 
basis; and (iii) the MIR expressed on a reactivity per mole basis. 
Differences between these three metrics are discussed below.
    The kOH is the reaction rate constant of the compound 
with the OH radical in the air. This reaction is typically the first 
step in a series of chemical reactions by which a compound breaks down 
in the air and participates in the ozone-forming process. If this step 
is slow, the compound will likely not form

[[Page 17039]]

ozone at a very fast rate. The kOH values have long been 
used by the EPA as a metric of photochemical reactivity and ozone-
forming activity, and they have been the basis for most of the EPA's 
previous exemptions of negligibly reactive compounds from the 
regulatory definition of VOCs. The kOH metric is inherently 
a molar-based comparison, i.e., it measures the rate at which molecules 
react.
    The MIR, both by mole and by mass, is a more recently developed 
metric of photochemical reactivity derived from a computer-based 
photochemical model. This metric considers the complete ozone forming 
activity of a compound on a single day, not merely the first reaction 
step. Further explanation of the MIR metric can be found in Carter, 
1994.
    The MIR values for compounds are typically expressed as grams of 
ozone formed per gram of VOC (mass basis), but they may also be 
expressed as grams of ozone formed per mole of VOC (molar basis). For 
comparing the reactivities of two compounds, using the molar-based MIR 
values considers an equal number of molecules of the two compounds. 
Alternatively, using the mass-based MIR values compares an equal mass 
of the two compounds, which will involve different numbers of 
molecules, depending on the relative molecular weights. The molar-based 
MIR comparison is consistent with the original smog chamber experiments 
that underlie the original selection of ethane as the threshold 
compound, in that these experiments compared equal molar concentrations 
of individual VOCs. It is also consistent with previous reactivity 
determinations based on kOH values, which are inherently 
molar-based. By contrast, the mass-based MIR comparison is more 
consistent with how MIR values and other reactivity metrics have been 
applied in reactivity-based emission limits, such as the national VOC 
emissions standards for aerosol coatings (40 CFR part 59 subpart E). 
Many other VOCs regulations contain limits based upon a weight of VOC 
per volume of product, such as the EPA's regulations for limiting VOC 
emissions from architectural coatings (40 CFR part 59 subpart D). 
However, the fact that regulations are structured to measure VOC 
content by weight for ease of implementation and enforcement does not 
necessarily control whether VOC exemption decisions should be made on a 
weight basis as well.
    The choice of the molar basis versus the mass basis for the ethane 
comparison can be significant. In some cases, a compound might be 
considered less reactive than ethane under the mass basis but not under 
the molar basis. For compounds with molecular weights higher than that 
of ethane, use of the mass basis results in more VOCs being classified 
as less reactive than ethane than use of the molar basis.
    The EPA has considered the choice between a molar or mass basis for 
the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. In the 
Interim Guidance, the EPA stated:

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

    The EPA's 2005 Interim Guidance also noted that concerns have 
sometimes been raised about the potential impact of a VOC exemption on 
environmental endpoints other than ozone concentrations, including fine 
particle formation, air toxics exposures, stratospheric ozone depletion 
and climate change. The EPA has recognized, however, that there are 
existing regulatory and non-regulatory programs that are specifically 
designed to address these issues, and the EPA continues to believe in 
general that the impacts of VOC exemptions on environmental endpoints 
other than ozone formation will be adequately addressed by these 
programs. The VOC exemption policy is intended to facilitate attainment 
of the ozone NAAQS. As such, in general, VOC exemption decisions will 
continue to be based solely on consideration of a compound's 
contribution to ozone formation. However, if EPA determines that a 
particular VOC exemption is likely to result in a significant increase 
in the use of a compound and that the increased use would pose a 
significant risk to human health or the environment that would not be 
addressed adequately by existing programs or policies, the EPA reserves 
the right to exercise its judgment in deciding whether to grant an 
exemption.

B. Petition To List AMP as an Exempt Compound

    Dow Chemical Company submitted a petition to the EPA on October 12, 
2012, requesting that 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (also known as AMP; 
CAS number 124-68-5) be exempted from the regulatory definition of VOCs 
based on its low reactivity relative to ethane. The petitioner 
indicated that AMP may be used in a variety of applications including 
in industries involved in the manufacture or use of pigments in water-
based coatings, as an additive in metalworking fluids, in food contact 
paper, as a neutralizer in personal care products, and as an 
intermediate in chemical synthesis.
    To support its petition, Dow Chemical referenced several documents, 
including a technical report on the maximum incremental reactivity of 
AMP (Carter, 2012) and two peer-reviewed journal articles on its 
reaction rates. According to these documents, the reactivity of AMP is 
0.25 gm O3/gm AMP in the maximum incremental reactivity 
(MIR) scale. The reactivity rate is slightly less than that of ethane, 
0.28 gm O3/gm ethane, the compound that the EPA has used for 
comparison to define ``negligible'' ozone reactivity for the purpose of 
exempting compounds from the regulatory definition of VOCs. The rate 
constant for the gas-phase reaction of OH radicals with AMP, 
(kOH) has been measured to be 2.8 x 10-\11\ 
cm\3\/molecule-sec at ~300 K (Harris and Pitts, 1983), giving it a 
relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere and thus reducing its 
ability to contribute to ozone formation. Under the conventional 
assumption of OH concentration of 3 x 10\6\ molecules/cm\3\, AMP would 
decay exponentially with a mean lifetime of about 4 hours (Carter, 
2008). Based on the measured reactivity rate of AMP (Harris and Pitts, 
1983), AMP has a larger kOH than ethane (ethane = 2.4 x 
10-\13\) and therefore it is initially more reactive than 
ethane, but as explained in detail in Carter, 2008, AMP's first 
reaction primarily terminates radicals rather than cycling them and 
therefore generally reduces ozone. With regard to stratospheric ozone 
depletion, the petitioner stated that the ozone depletion potential of 
AMP is insignificant based on the expected possible initial reactions 
described in Carter 2008 and the general theory supporting the 
estimated mechanisms discussed in Carter 2012. Given that AMP has a 
relatively short atmospheric lifetime, and because it does not contain 
chlorine or bromine, it is not expected to contribute to the depletion 
of the stratospheric ozone layer.

IV. The EPA's Assessment of the Petition

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the petition for 
exemption of AMP from the regulatory definition of VOCs. This action is 
consistent with the 2005 Interim Guidance based on comparison of the 
three reactivity

[[Page 17040]]

metric values for AMP to the corresponding values for ethane. As a 
short-lived substance, there is no evidence that AMP would have a 
substantial climate impact: AMP meets the Interim Guidance criteria for 
no significant risks in terms of environmental endpoints other than 
ozone formation. Information on these topics is given in the following 
sections.

A. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone

    The reaction rate of AMP for reaction with OH radical 
(kOH) has been measured to be 2.8 x 10-\11\ 
cm\3\/molecule-sec (Harris and Pitts, 1983); other reactions with ozone 
and nitrate radical were negligibly small. The corresponding reaction 
rate of ethane with OH is 2.4 x 10-\13\ cm\3\/molecule-sec 
(Atkinson et al., 2006).
    The overall atmospheric reactivity of AMP was studied in an 
experimental smog chamber, and the chemical mechanism derived from this 
study was used to model the complete formation of ozone for an entire 
single day under realistic atmospheric conditions (Carter, 2012). Using 
the standard 39-city array of input conditions, Carter calculated a MIR 
value of 0.25 g O3/g VOC for AMP for ``averaged 
conditions,'' versus 0.28 g O3/g VOC for ethane.
    Table 1 presents the three reactivity metrics for AMP as they 
compare to ethane.

                                     Table 1--Reactivities of Ethane and AMP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Maximum         Maximum
                                                                                    incremental     incremental
                Compound                         kOH (cm\3\/molecule-sec)           reactivity      reactivity
                                                                                   (MIR) (g O3/    (MIR) (g O3/g
                                                                                     mole VOC)         VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane..................................  2.4 x 10-13...........................            8.4             0.28
AMP.....................................  2.8 x 10-11...........................           22.25            0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. kOH value at 298 K for ethane is from Atkinson et al., 2006 (page 2636).
2. kOH value at 300 K for AMP is from Harris and Pitts, 1983 (page 50).
3. Mass-based MIR value (g O3/g VOC) of ethane is from Carter, 2011.
4. Mass-based MIR value (g O3/g VOC) of AMP is from Carter, 2012.
5. Molar-based MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were calculated from the mass-based MIR (g O3/g VOC) values using the
  number of moles per gram of the relevant organic compound.

    From the data in Table 1, it can be seen that AMP has a higher 
kOH value than ethane, meaning that it initially reacts more 
quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. Also, a molecule of AMP is more 
reactive than a molecule of ethane in terms of complete ozone forming 
activity as shown by the molar-based MIR (g O3/mole VOC) 
values. However, the nitrogen-centered radical in AMP scavenges 
radicals, primarily NOX and is expected to form nitramine 
that is assumed to be inert according to Harris and Pitts, 1983. This 
is in line with the effects of AMP addition on ozone concentration 
reduction observed in the chamber experiments of Carter, 2008. The 
early reactivity of AMP is thus short lived, because the reaction 
pathway is terminated by the intermediate production of assumed inert 
nitramine. Unlike other VOCs, AMP is a base and might be lost to some 
degree by reaction with HNO3, forming non-volatile amine 
salts, reducing its availability in the gas phase for O3 
formation. As a result, one gram of AMP has a lower MIR value than one 
gram of ethane. Thus, under the 2005 Interim Guidance AMP is eligible 
to be exempted from the regulatory definition of VOCs, on the basis of 
the mass-based MIR.

B. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health or the Environment

    Information in Dow Chemical Company's petition and its appendices 
as well as the reference material indicates that AMP has low toxicity 
(Griffin 1990), no irritation or skin sensitization, and no detectable 
genotoxic activity in vitro or in vivo. AMP was subject to the Ames 
test, the mouse lymphoma assay and the mouse micronucleus test (Gudi, 
1998; San and Clark, 1997; and Wagner 1996) and was found negative in 
these studies among several others. AMP has a toxicity profile amply 
documented in the appendices provided with the petition material and 
placed in the docket for this rulemaking. AMP also has a favorable 
toxicity profile supported by the Hazard Characterization Document 
dedicated to AMP published by EPA in March of 2012, titled ``Screening-
level Hazard Characterization of High Production Volume Chemicals--2-
Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) CASRN 124-68-5'' under the High 
Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. EPA. High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program; 
http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/hazchar/124685_AMP_March_2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, AMP is a reasonably strong base and forms salts with 
acids. Therefore, in many formulations very little AMP will evaporate 
and will be available for atmospheric reaction due to its ionic or salt 
form. Therefore, exposure is low due to low volatility at room 
temperature. However, repeated inhalation of vapor or mist could cause 
respiratory irritation. Burnett et al. (2009) reviewed safety data and 
found that AMP is safe to use in cosmetics after he performed several 
acute inhalation studies with AMP as well as with AMP in alcohol and 
propellant. The studies indicated that AMP is nontoxic by inhalation. 
The studies also tested other routes of exposure and found them to be 
nontoxic as well.
    AMP is not regulated as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) under title 
I of the Clean Air Act. Also, it is not listed as a toxic chemical 
under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Act (EPCRA).
    The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires the EPA to assess 
and prevent any unreasonable risks to human health and the environment 
before a new chemical substance is introduced into commerce. Section 5 
of TSCA requires manufacturers and importers to notify the EPA before 
manufacturing or importing a new chemical substance. This 
premanufacture notice, or PMN, must be submitted at least 90 days prior 
to the manufacture (including import) of the chemical. Under the TSCA 
New Chemicals Program, the EPA then performs a risk assessment on the 
new chemical substance to determine whether an unreasonable risk may, 
or will, be presented by the expected manufacture, processing, 
distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the new

[[Page 17041]]

substance. AMP is TSCA compliant, but is not a new compound and did not 
undergo PMN review.
    The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program is the EPA's 
program to evaluate and regulate substitutes for ozone-depleting 
chemicals. In Section 612(c) of the CAA, the agency is authorized to 
identify and publish lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 
for class I or class II ozone-depleting substances. AMP is not a 
substitute for any of the ozone-depleting chemicals, and it has not 
been evaluated under the SNAP program. For the reasons stated in 
section III, AMP does not contribute to the depletion of the 
stratospheric ozone layer.

C. Climate Impacts

    The EPA has previously exempted compounds with modest climate 
impacts from the regulatory definition of VOCs. Because AMP has a 
relatively short atmospheric lifetime (i.e., about 4 hours under the 
conventional assumption of a hydroxyl radical concentration of 3 x 
10\6\ molecules/cm\3\), its direct contribution to global warming 
should be insignificant and thus any indirect contributions to global 
warming through interactions with ozone and methane chemistry should be 
of the order of or smaller than that of ethane (in addition to any 
conversion of carbon in AMP to carbon dioxide).

D. Conclusion

    In summary, the EPA finds that AMP is negligibly reactive with 
respect to its contribution to tropospheric ozone formation and thus 
may be exempted from EPA's definition of VOCs in 40 CFR section 
51.100(s). We consider risks not related to tropospheric ozone 
associated with currently allowed uses of the chemical to be 
acceptable. AMP has not been the subject of any SNAP review. AMP's 
performance as a multifunctional neutralizer combined with its reduced 
ozone potential and favorable toxicity data makes this product a 
preferred one compared to more toxic chemicals used for the same 
purpose. In addition, there is no evidence that climate effects or 
other environmental impacts resulting from AMP emissions should 
disqualify AMP for exemption from the regulatory definition of VOCs 
based on the 2005 Interim Guidance criteria.

V. Direct Final Action

    The EPA is responding to the petition by revising its regulatory 
definition of VOCs at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to add AMP to the list of 
compounds that are exempt from the regulatory definition of VOCs 
because they are negligibly reactive, on the basis that it is less 
reactive than ethane on a mass MIR basis. If an entity uses or produces 
any of this compound and is subject to EPA regulations limiting the use 
of VOC in a product, limiting the VOC emissions from a facility, or 
otherwise controlling the use of VOC for purposes related to attaining 
the ozone NAAQS, then this compound will not be counted as a VOC in 
determining whether these regulatory obligations have been met. This 
action may also affect whether this compound is considered a VOC for 
state regulatory purposes to reduce ozone formation if a state relies 
on the EPA's regulatory definition of VOCs. States are not obligated to 
exclude from control as a VOC those compounds that the EPA has found to 
be negligibly reactive. However, no state may take credit for 
controlling this compound in its ozone control strategy. For example, 
reduction in emissions for this compound will not be considered or 
counted in determining whether states have met rate of progress 
requirement for VOCs in SIPs for purpose of meeting the ozone NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It does not contain any 
recordkeeping or reporting requirement.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this notice on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a 
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.); (2) A 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this direct final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule 
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect 
on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This direct final 
rule removes AMP from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby 
relieves users of the compound from requirements to control emissions 
of the compound. We have therefore concluded that this direct final 
rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal 
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This direct final 
rule removes AMP from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby 
relieves users of the compound from requirements to control emissions 
of the compound.

[[Page 17042]]

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This direct final rule removes AMP 
from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby relieves users of 
the compound from requirements to control emissions of the compound. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It would not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
This direct final rule removes AMP from the regulatory definition of 
VOCs and thereby relieves users from requirements to control emissions 
of the compound. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

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

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 
12866. While this direct final rule is not subject to the Executive 
Order, the EPA has reason to believe that at higher concentrations 
ozone has a disproportionate effect on active children who play 
outdoors (62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997). The EPA has not 
identified any specific studies on whether or to what extent AMP may 
affect children's health.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``(66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a ``significant energy action'' 
under EO 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, the EPA has not considered the use of any voluntary 
consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it will not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This direct final rule removes AMP from the regulatory 
definition of VOCs and thereby relieves users of the compound from 
requirements to control emissions of the compound.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective on June 25, 2014.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the 
final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition 
for review by the Administrator of this final action does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review 
must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such action. 
Thus, any petitions for review of this action related to the exemption 
of AMP from the regulatory definition of VOCs must be filed in the 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days 
from the date final action is published in the Federal Register.

References

Atkinson, R., Baulch, D.L., Cox, R.A., Crowley, J.N., Hampson, Jr., 
R.F., Hynes, R.G., Jenkin, M.E., Kerr, J.A., Rossi, M.J., and Troe, 
J. (2006) Evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for atmospheric 
chemistry: Volume II--gas phase reactions of organic species. Atmos. 
Chem. Phys. 6: 3625-4055.
Burnett, C.L., Bergfeld, W.F., Belsito, D.V., Klaassen, C.D., Marks, 
Jr., J.G., Shank, R.C., Slaga, T.J., Snyder, P.W., Expert Panel, and 
Andersen, F.A. (2009) Final Amended Report on Safety Assessment on 
Aminomethyl Propanol and Aminomethyl Propanediol. Int. J. Toxicol 
28(6S) 141S-161S.
Carter, W.P.L. (1994) Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for 
Volatile Organic Compositions. J. Air Waste Manage, 44: 881-899.
Carter, W.P.L. (2008) Reactivity Estimates for Selected Consumer 
Product Compounds, Final Report to California Air Resources Board 
Contract No. 06-408, February 19, 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/consumer_products.pdf.
Carter, W.P.L. (2010) Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism 
and Updated Ozone Reactivity Scales, Report to the California Air 
Resources Board, Revised January 27, 2010. http://www.engr.ucr.edu/
~carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf.
Carter, W.P.L. (2011) SAPRC Atmospheric Chemical Mechanisms and VOC 
Reactivity Scales, Web page at http://www.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/
SAPRC/. Page last updated June 21. Reactivity tabulation available 
at http://www.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/SAPRC/scales07.xls. May 11 May 
11, 2011.

[[Page 17043]]

Carter, W.P.L. (2012) Atmospheric Ozone Reactivity Estimates for 2-
amino-2-methyl-1-propanol, College of Engineering Center for 
Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) and Air Pollution 
Research Center, University of California, Riverside CA 92521, 
September 26, 2012.
Griffin, T. (1990). A One-Year Oral Toxicity Study of AMP in Dogs. 
Coulston Research Incorporated, White Sands Research Center, 
Alamogordo, NM, USA. Amended by the original author on April 20, 
1993.
Gudi, R. (1998) Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test (2-amino-2-
methyl-1-propanol). Laboratory Study Number G97CG03.123 of MA 
Bioservices, Inc., Rockville, MD. Sponsored by Angus Chemical 
Company, Buffalo Grove, IL.
Harris, G. and Pitts, J. (1983) Rates of Reaction of Hydroxyl 
Radicals with 2-(Dimethylamino) ethanol and 2-Amino-2-methyl-1-
propanol in the Gas Phase at 300  2 K. Environ Sci. 
Technol., 17: 50-51, 1983.
San, R. and Clark, J. (1997) In Vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation 
Test with an Independent Repeat Assay. Microbiological Associates, 
Inc. The Dow Chemical Company Report No: DR-0309-4391-005.
Wagner, V. (1996) Salmonella/Escherichia Coli Plate Incorporation 
Mutagenicity Assay with a Confirmatory Assay. Study Number 
G95BU17.502001 of Microbiological Associates, Inc., Rockville, MD.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 21, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF 
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Subpart F--Procedural Requirements

0
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]  

0
2. Section 51.100, paragraph (s)(1) introductory text, is amended by 
removing the words ``and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into 
these classes:'' and adding in their place the words ``2-amino-2-
methyl-1-propanol; and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these 
classes:''.

[FR Doc. 2014-06790 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P