Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0086-0064
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds-Exclusion of Four Compounds
Posted Date: 2004-11-17T05:00Z

Draft
Copy
of
Final
Federal
Register
Notice
for
Air
Quality:
Revision
to
Definition
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
­
Exclusion
of
Four
Compounds
which
was
sent
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
for
review
on
November
16,
2004.

11­
16­
04
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
51
[
FRL­]

RIN
2060­
AK37
Air
Quality:
Revision
to
Definition
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
­
Exclusion
of
Four
Compounds
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
revises
EPA's
definition
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
for
purposes
of
preparing
State
implementation
plans
(
SIPs)
to
attain
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
(
NAAQS)
for
ozone
under
title
I
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
This
revision
would
add
four
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.
This
revision
will
modify
the
definition
of
VOC
to
say
that:

1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­
methoxy­
propane
(
n­
C3F7OCH3)

(
known
as
HFE­
7000);
3­
ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­

dodecafluoro­
2­(
trifluoromethyl)
hexane
(
known
as
HFE­
7500,

HFE­
s702,
T­
7145,
and
L­
15381);
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­

heptafluoropropane
(
known
as
HFC
227ea);
and
methyl
formate
(
HCOOCH3)
will
not
be
VOC
for
purposes
of
VOC
emissions
limitations
or
VOC
content
requirements.
If
you
use
or
2
produce
any
of
these
four
compounds
and
are
subject
to
EPA
regulations
limiting
the
use
of
VOCs
in
your
product,

limiting
the
VOC
emissions
from
your
facility,
or
otherwise
controlling
your
use
of
VOCs,
then
you
will
not
count
these
four
compounds
as
a
VOC
in
determining
whether
you
meet
these
regulatory
obligations.
This
action
may
also
affect
whether
these
four
compounds
are
considered
to
be
VOCs
for
State
regulatory
purposes,
depending
on
whether
the
State
relies
on
EPA's
definition
of
VOC.
As
a
result,
if
States
and
States'
industries
are
subject
to
certain
Federal
regulations
limiting
emissions
of
VOCs,
i.
e.,
emissions
of
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­
methoxy­
propane,
or
3­
ethoxy­

1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­
dodecafluoro­
2­(
trifluoromethyl)

hexane,
or
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane,
or
methyl
formate,
these
emissions
may
not
be
regulated
for
some
purposes
according
to
the
rules
governing
States'

enforceability
of
the
measures.

With
this
action,
EPA
is
not
finalizing
a
decision
on
how
the
Agency
will
evaluate
future
VOC
exemption
petitions.

Currently,
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
assessing
its
VOC
policy
in
general.
We
intend
to
publish
a
future
notice
inviting
public
comment
on
the
VOC
exemption
policy
and
the
concept
of
negligible
reactivity
as
part
of
a
broader
review
of
overall
policy.

In
addition
to
granting
the
four
new
exemptions
described
above,
we
are
making
a
nomenclature
clarification
3
to
two
previously­
exempted
compounds.
We
will
thus
add
the
nomenclature
designations
"
HFE­
7100"
to
1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4­

nonafluoro­
4­
methoxy­
butane
(
C4F9OCH3)
and
"
HFE­
7200"
to
1­

ethoxy­
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4­
nonafluorobutane
(
C4F9OC2H5).

DATES:
This
rule
is
effective
[
insert
date
30
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].

ADDRESSES:

A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
Of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket.
The
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
action,
OAR­
2003­
0086,
which
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.

Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.

The
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
pm.,
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
is
(
202)
566
.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying.

2.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
4
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
"
Federal
Register"
listing
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/
.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,

you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search"
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
David
Sanders,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Air
Quality
Strategies
and
Standards
Division
(
C539­
02),
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
phone
(
919)
541­
3356.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Regulated
entities.

Entities
potentially
affected
by
this
action
are
those
(
in
the
list
matrix
below)
that
use
and
emit
VOC
as
well
as
States
that
have
programs
to
control
VOC
emissions.

This
action
has
no
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States
or
industry
because
it
does
not
impose
any
new
mandates
on
5
these
entities
but,
to
the
contrary,
removes
four
chemical
compounds
from
regulation
as
a
VOC.

Category
Examples
of
regulated
entities
Industry
Industries
that
use
or
make
refrigerants,
blowing
agents,

fire
suppressants,
or
solvents
States
States
which
have
regulations
to
control
volatile
organic
compounds
This
matrix
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
now
aware
could
potentially
be
affected
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
have
the
potential
of
being
affected.

The
four
compounds
we
are
excluding
from
the
definition
of
VOC
all
have
potential
for
use
as
refrigerants,
fire
suppressants,
aerosol
propellants,
or
blowing
agents
(
used
in
the
manufacture
of
foamed
plastic).
In
addition,
all
of
these
compounds,
may
be
used
as
an
alternative
to
ozonedepleting
substances
such
as
chlorofluorocarbons
(
CFCs)
and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(
HCFCs).

Three
of
the
compounds,
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­

methoxy­
propane,
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane,
and
methyl
formate
are
approved
by
EPA's
Significant
New
Alternatives
Policy
(
SNAP)
program
(
CAA
section
612;
40
CFR
part
82,
subpart
G)
as
acceptable
substitutes
for
ozonedepleting
compounds.
The
fourth
compound,
3­
ethoxy­
6
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­
dodecafluoro­
2­(
trifluoromethyl)

hexane,
has
not
been
reviewed
under
SNAP
because
it
was
submitted
for
use
in
secondary
loop
refrigeration
systems.

Fluids
used
in
these
systems
are
not
covered
by
the
SNAP
program
(
62
FR
10700
March
10,
1997).
However,
this
compound
is
a
member
of
a
larger
class
of
compounds
known
as
hydrofluoroethers
(
HFEs),
and
other
HFEs
have
been
recognized
by
SNAP
as
substitutes
for
ozone­
depleting
substances.

Also,
we
are
making
a
nomenclature
clarification
to
two
previously
exempted
compounds.
We
have
added
the
designations
"
HFE­
7100"
to
1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4­
nonafluoro­
4­

methoxy­
butane
(
C4F9OCH3)
and
"
HFE­
7200"
to
1­
ethoxy­

1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4­
nonafluorobutane
(
C4F9OC2H5).
These
names
are
widely
accepted
alternative
designations
for
the
two
compounds
and
can
be
found
in
the
book
titled,
Handbook
for
Critical
Cleaning
by
Barbara
Kanegsberg
and
Edward
Kanegsberg,
CRC
Press,
2001,
p.
77.

The
EPA
is
now
in
the
process
of
assessing
its
VOC
policy
in
general.
As
part
of
this
process,
we
intend
to
publish
a
future
notice
inviting
public
comment
on
the
VOC
exemption
policy
and
the
concept
of
negligible
reactivity
as
part
of
a
broader
review
of
overall
policy.
One
of
the
issues
we
will
address
in
this
notice
is
to
the
extent
to
which
compounds
that
are
exempt
from
the
VOC
definition
should
still
be
subject
to
recordkeeping,
emissions
7
reporting,
and
inventory
requirements
which
apply
to
VOC.

The
Agency
wants
to
investigate
whether
substantial
emissions
of
"
negligibly
reactive"
compounds
may
contribute
to
ozone
formation
under
certain
conditions.
This
effort
will
require
additional
modeling,
and
it
may
be
necessary
to
have
a
more
accurate
inventory
of
such
compounds
in
order
to
obtain
accurate
modeling
results.
However,
instead
of
addressing
this
issue
in
this
rule,
which
applies
to
only
four
compounds,
we
intend
to
address
it
more
broadly
in
our
upcoming
notice
dealing
with
our
overall
VOC
policy.

To
determine
whether
your
organization
is
affected
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
51.100
of
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations.
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.

Outline
I.
Background
A.
Reactivity
Policy
B.
Current
Exemption
Petitions
1.
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­
methoxy­
propane
and
3­

ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­
dodecafluoro­
2­

(
trifluoromethyl)
hexane
2.
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane
3.
methyl
formate
8
II.
The
EPA
Response
to
the
Petitions
III.
The
EPA
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.
Congressional
Review
Act
I.
Background
A.
Reactivity
Policy
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.
Volatile
organic
compounds
are
those
compounds
of
carbon
(
excluding
carbon
monoxide,

carbon
dioxide,
carbonic
acid,
metallic
carbides
or
9
carbonates,
and
ammonium
carbonate)
which
form
ozone
through
atmospheric
photochemical
reactions.
Compounds
of
carbon
(
also
known
as
organic
compounds)
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.
It
has
been
EPA's
policy
that
organic
compounds
with
a
negligible
level
of
reactivity
need
not
be
regulated
to
reduce
ozone.
The
EPA
determines
whether
a
given
organic
compound
has
"
negligible"
reactivity
by
comparing
the
compound's
reactivity
to
the
reactivity
of
ethane.
The
EPA
lists
these
compounds
in
its
regulations
(
at
40
CFR
51.100(
s))
and
excludes
them
from
the
definition
of
VOCs.

The
chemicals
on
this
list
are
often
called
"
negligibly
reactive"
organic
compounds.

In
1977,
EPA
published
the
"
Recommended
Policy
on
Control
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds"
(
42
FR
35314,
July
8,

1977)
which
established
the
basic
policy
that
EPA
has
used
regarding
organic
chemical
photochemical
reactivity
since
that
time.
In
that
statement,
EPA
identified
the
following
four
compounds
as
being
of
negligible
photochemical
reactivity
and
said
these
should
be
exempt
from
regulation
as
VOCs
under
SIPs:
methane;
ethane;
1,1,1­
trichloroethane
(
methyl
chloroform);
1,1,2­
trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
(
CFC­
113).
That
policy
statement
said
that
as
new
information
becomes
available,
EPA
may
periodically
revise
the
list
of
negligibly
reactive
compounds
to
add
compounds
10
to
or
delete
them
from
the
list.

The
EPA's
decision
to
exempt
certain
organic
compounds
in
its
1977
policy
was
heavily
influenced
by
experimental
smog
chamber
experiments
performed
by
EPA's
Office
of
Research
and
Development
earlier
in
the
1970'
s.
In
this
experimental
work,
various
compounds
were
injected
into
a
smog
chamber
at
a
molar
concentration
that
was
typical
of
the
total
molar
concentration
of
VOC
in
Los
Angeles
ambient
air
(
4
parts
per
million
by
volume
(
ppmV)).
As
the
compound
was
allowed
to
react
with
NOX
at
concentrations
of
0.2
parts
per
million
(
ppm),
the
maximum
ozone
formed
in
the
chamber
was
measured.
If
the
compound
in
the
smog
chamber
did
not
result
in
ozone
formation
of
0.08
ppm
(
0.08
ppm
was
the
NAAQS
for
oxidants
at
that
time),
it
was
assumed
that
emissions
of
the
compound
would
not
cause
an
exceedance
of
the
NAAQS.
Following
this
reasoning,
EPA
concluded
that
the
compound
was
negligibly
reactive.
Ethane
was
the
most
reactive
compound
tested
that
did
not
cause
the
0.08
ozone
level
in
the
smog
chamber
to
be
met
or
exceeded.
Based
on
those
findings
and
judgments,
EPA
therefore
designated
ethane
as
negligibly
reactive,
and
ethane
became
the
benchmark
VOC
species
for
separating
reactive
from
negligibly
reactive
compounds
under
the
assumed
conditions.

Since
1977,
EPA's
primary
method
for
comparing
the
reactivity
of
a
specific
compound
to
that
of
ethane
has
been
to
compare
the
kOH
values
for
ethane
and
the
specific
11
compound
of
interest.
The
kOH
value
represents
the
molar
rate
constant
for
reactions
between
the
subject
compound
(
e.
g.,
ethane)
and
the
hydroxyl
radical
(
i.
e.,

OH).
This
reaction
is
very
important
since
it
is
the
primary
pathway
by
which
most
organic
compounds
initially
participate
in
atmospheric
photochemical
reaction
processes
to
form
ozone.

The
EPA
has
exempted
45
compounds
or
classes
of
compounds
based
on
a
comparison
of
kOH
values
since
1977.

In
1994,
in
response
to
a
petition
to
exempt
volatile
methyl
siloxanes,
EPA,
used
another
type
of
comparison
to
ethane
based
on
incremental
reactivity
(
IR)
metrics
(
59
FR
50693,
October
5,
1994).
The
use
of
IR
metrics
allowed
EPA
to
take
into
consideration
the
ozone
forming
potential
of
other
reactions
of
the
compound
in
addition
to
the
initial
reaction
with
the
hydroxyl
radical.
Volatile
methyl
siloxanes
proved
to
be
less
reactive
than
ethane
on
a
per
mole
basis.
In
1995,
EPA
considered
another
compound,

acetone,
using
IR
metrics.
Because
acetone
breaks
down
to
form
ozone
by
the
process
of
photolysis
rather
than
by
the
normal
OH
reaction
scheme,
EPA
considered
the
IR
metrics
instead
of
kOH
values,
and
exempted
acetone
based
on
the
fact
that
acetone
was
less
reactive
than
ethane
on
the
basis
of
grams
of
ozone
formed
per
grams
of
VOC
emitted
(
60
FR
31635,

June
16,
1995).
Prior
to
1994,
EPA
had
only
granted
VOC
exemptions
based
on
kOH
values.
Since
1995,
EPA
has
exempted
one
additional
compound,
methyl
acetate,
reinforced
12
by
comparisons
of
IR
metrics.
Besides
a
lower
kOH
value
than
ethane,
EPA
found
that
the
reactivity
of
methyl
acetate
was
comparable
to
or
less
than
that
for
ethane,
under
a
per
mole
basis.

B.
Current
Exemption
Petitions
1.
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­
methoxy­
propane
and
3­
ethoxy­

1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­
dodecafluoro­
2­(
trifluoromethyl)

hexane
On
February
5,
1999,
the
Performance
Chemicals
and
Fluid
Division
of
the
3M
Company
submitted
to
EPA
a
petition
requesting
that
the
compound
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­

methoxy­
propane
be
added
to
the
list
of
compounds
which
are
negligibly
reactive
and
therefore
exempt
from
the
definition
of
VOC
at
40
CFR
51.100(
s).
The
next
year,
on
August
21,

2000,
the
Performance
Chemicals
and
Fluid
Division
of
the
3M
Company
submitted
to
EPA
a
petition
requesting
that
the
compound
3­
ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­
dodecafluoro­
2­

(
trifluoromethyl)
hexane
be
added
to
the
same
list.

Potential
uses
for
these
two
compounds
(
and
other
compounds
for
consideration
under
this
proposal)
are
shown
in
Table
1.
In
its
first
petition,
3M
points
out
that
it
has
requested
the
compound
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­

methoxy­
propane
be
listed
as
an
acceptable
substitute
for
CFCs
and
HCFCs
in
certain
uses
and;
as
such,
use
of
this
substance
may
help
mitigate
the
depletion
of
stratospheric
ozone.
13
Table
1
Potential
Uses
of
Compounds
Compound
Potential
Use
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­

3­
methoxy­
propane
­
refrigerant
­
aerosol
propellant
3­
ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6
­
dodecafluoro­
2­(
trifluoromethyl)

hexane
­
refrigerant
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane
­
fire
suppressant
­
aerosol
propellant
methyl
formate
­
blowing
agent
Although
3­
ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­
dodecafluoro­
2­

(
trifluoromethyl)
hexane
has
not
been
identified
as
a
CFC
substitute,
specifically,
the
SNAP
program
has
identified
hydrofluoroethers
(
HFEs),
as
a
class,
as
replacement
substitutes
for
CFCs.

In
support
of
the
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­

methoxypropane
and
the
3­
ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­

dodecafluoro­
2­(
trifluoromethyl)
hexane
petitions,
3M
Company
supplied
information
on
the
photochemical
reactivities
of
the
compounds.
The
3M
Company
stated
that,

as
hydrofluoroethers,
these
compounds
are
very
similar
in
structure,
toxicity,
and
atmospheric
properties
to
other
compounds
such
as
C4F9OCH3,
(
CH3)
2CFCF2OCH3,
C4F9OC2H5,
and
(
CH3)
2CFCF2OC2H5
which
are
exempt
already
from
the
VOC
definition.
14
Other
information
submitted
by
3M
Company
consists
mainly
of
a
peer­
reviewed
article
entitled
"
Atmospheric
Chemistry
of
Some
Fluoroethers,"
Guschin,
Molina,
Molina:

Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
May
1998.
This
article
discusses
a
study
in
which
the
rate
constant
for
the
reaction
of
HFE­
7000
(
and
several
other
individual
compounds)
with
the
hydroxyl
(
OH)
radical
is
shown
to
be
less
than
the
rate
constant
for
ethane
but
slightly
more
than
the
rate
constant
for
methane
on
a
mole
basis.
This
rate
constant
(
kOH
value)
is
commonly
used
as
one
measure
of
the
photochemical
reactivity
of
compounds.
The
petitioner
compared
the
rate
constants
with
that
of
ethane
which
has
already
been
listed
as
photochemically
negligibly
reactive
(
ethane
is
the
compound
with
the
highest
kOH
value
which
is
currently
regarded
as
negligibly
reactive).
The
two
compounds
under
consideration
for
exemption
are
listed
with
their
reported
kOH
rate
constants
in
Table
2
along
with
ethane
(
and
compounds
for
consideration
under
this
proposal).
3M
Company
has
also
included
Material
Safety
Data
Sheets,
together
with
5­
day
and
28­
day
inhalation
toxicity
studies,
indicating
both
their
compounds
as
having
very
low
toxicity.
The
scientific
information
which
the
petitioner
has
submitted
in
support
of
the
petition
has
been
added
to
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking.
This
information
includes
references
for
the
journal
articles
where
the
rate
constant
values
are
published.
15
Table
2
Reaction
Rate
Constants
(
at
25

C)
with
OH
Radical
Compound
cm3/
molecule/
sec
(
kOH)

ethane
2.4
x
10­
13
n­
C3F7OCH3
1.2
x
10­
14
HFE­
7500
2.2
x
10­
14
HFC­
227ea
1.09
x
10­
15
methyl
formate
2.27
x
10­
13
2.
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane
On
February
18,
1998,
the
Great
Lakes
Chemical
Corporation
("
Great
Lakes")
petitioned
EPA
for
the
exemption
of
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane
(
HCF­
227ea)
from
the
definition
of
VOC.
The
rate
constant
for
the
reaction
of
HFC­
227ea
with
the
OH
radical
was
based
on
studies
performed
at
the
laboratories
of
Aerodyne
Research,
Inc.
and
reported
by
Nelson,
Zahniser,
and
Kolb
in
the
Geophysical
Research
Letters.,
Vol.
20,
No.
2,
pages
197­
200.
The
rate
constant
for
HFC­
227ea
as
reported
in
this
paper
(
Table
2)
is
1.09
x
10­
15
cm3/
molecule/
sec
at
277K
(
0

C)
which
places
it
well
under
two
orders
of
magnitude
below
ethane's
reactivity.

Great
Lakes
also
claims
that
HFC­
227ea
is
not
an
ozonedepleting
substance.
The
EPA
has
approved
this
compound
already
under
the
SNAP
program
as
an
acceptable
substitute
for
Halon
1301
and
Halon
1211
in
various
fire
suppression
applications.
Also,
EPA
has
determined
HFC­
227ea
to
have
a
GWP
at
3800
times
that
of
carbon
dioxide,
making
it
a
16
probable
substitute
for
its
competitor
fire
suppressants
which
have
even
higher
GWPs.
The
GWP
is
a
number
that
refers
to
the
amount
of
global
warming
caused
by
a
substance.
The
GWP
is
the
ratio
of
the
warming
caused
by
a
substance
to
the
warming
caused
by
a
similar
mass
of
carbon
dioxide.
Thus,
the
GWP
of
CO2
is
defined
to
be
1.0.
CFC­
12
has
a
GWP
of
8,500,
while
CFC­
11
has
a
GWP
of
5,000.

Various
HCFCs
and
HFCs
have
GWPs
ranging
from
93
to
12,100.

Water,
a
substitute
in
numerous
end­
uses,
has
a
GWP
of
0.

3.
Methyl
formate
On
February
12,
2002,
Foam
Supplies,
Inc.
submitted
a
petition
to
exclude
methyl
formate
from
the
definition
of
VOC.
Also
submitted
were
journal
articles
detailing
three
separate
studies
with
hydroxyl
radicals
in
which
methyl
formate's
rate
constants
are
measured
against
that
of
ethane
on
a
mole
basis
(
cm3/
molecule/
sec).
Of
the
three
studies,

the
highest
value
tested
for
methyl
formate
was
that
of
2.27
x
10­
13
cm3/
molecule/
sec
which
is
slightly
below
that
for
ethane
at
2.4
x
10­
13
cm3/
molecule/
sec
(
shown
in
Table
2).

Foam
Supplies,
Inc.
also
notes
that
methyl
formate
has
a
zero
ODP
and
a
very
low
or
zero
GWP.
In
addition,
Foam
Supplies,
Inc.
notes
that
EPA
has
approved
this
compound
under
SNAP
as
an
acceptable
alternative
to
HCFC­
141b
and
HCFC­
22
in
various
blowing
agent
applications.

Because
of
the
closeness
in
rate
constant
values
attributed
to
methyl
formate
and
ethane,
in
addition
to
the
17
information
on
kOH
value
submitted
by
the
petitioner,
EPA
has
examined
further
evidence
of
low
reactivity
for
methyl
formate.
This
evidence,
which
is
desirable
when
rate
constant
values
are
so
close
(
as
in
the
case
of
methyl
formate
and
ethane),
increases
the
confidence
level
with
which
EPA
can
make
a
final
decision
on
whether
to
approve
or
disapprove
of
a
petition
to
exempt
a
compound
from
the
VOC
definition.
Dr.
William
P.
L.
Carter
of
the
University
of
California
at
Riverside
has
published
"
The
SAPRC­
99
Chemical
Mechanism
and
Updated
VOC
Reactivity
Scales,"(
revised
11/
29/
2000)
on
his
website
at:

http://
ftp.
cert.
ucr.
edu/
pub/
carter/
SAPRC99/
appndxc.
doc.

Appendix
C
of
his
report
gives
maximum
incremental
reactivity
(
MIR)
values
which
are
another
accepted
measure
of
photochemical
reactivity.
Dr.
Carter's
MIR
values
are
calculated
in
grams
ozone
per
gram
of
organic
compound.

These
same
MIR
values
can
be
calculated
on
the
basis
of
grams
of
ozone
per
mole
of
organic
compound
as
discussed
in
the
above
section
concerning
differences
between
grambasis
and
mole­
basis
reactivity
rates.
Methyl
formate
has
negligible
reactivity
rates
at
less
than
half
that
of
ethane.
Sections
of
the
Carter
report
showing
ethane
and
methyl
formate
values
have
been
added
to
the
docket.
Also,

this
same
data
may
be
seen
on
Dr.
Carter's
website
as
stated
above.

While
the
purpose
of
exempting
negligibly
reactive
VOCs
18
is
to
avoid
unnecessary
regulation
that
will
not
help
in
the
attainment
of
the
ozone
NAAQS,
it
is
possible
that
exempting
specific
compounds
from
regulation
as
a
VOC
could
result
in
significant
health
risks
or
other
undesirable
environmental
impacts.
The
EPA
has
included
available
information
about
the
toxicity
of
the
four
compounds
under
consideration
in
the
docket.
Also,
EPA
invited
public
comment,
during
the
comment
period,
on
the
potential
for
significant
health
or
environmental
risks
that
may
be
expected
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
exemptions,
taking
into
account
the
expected
uses
for
the
compounds.

II.
The
EPA
Response
to
the
Petitions
For
the
petitions
submitted
by
the
3M
Company,
Great
Lakes
Chemical
Corporation,
and
Foam
Supplies,
Inc.,
the
data
submitted
by
the
petitioners
support
the
contention
that
the
reactivities
of
the
compounds
submitted,
with
respect
to
reaction
with
OH
radicals
in
the
atmosphere,
are
lower
than
that
of
ethane.
There
is
ample
evidence
in
the
literature
that
methyl
formate
and
the
halogenated
paraffinic
VOC,
listed
above,
do
not
participate
in
such
reactions
significantly.

The
EPA
is
responding
to
the
petitions
by
adding
the
compounds
in
Table
3
to
the
list
of
compounds
exempt
from
the
definition
of
VOC
appearing
in
40
CFR
51.100(
s).

Also,
EPA
is
adding
the
Table
3
19
Compounds
to
be
Added
to
the
List
of
Negligibly
Reactive
Compounds
Compound
Chemical
Name
or
Formula
n­
C3F7OCH3
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­

methoxypropane
HFE­
7500
3­
ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­

dodecafluoro­
2­(
trifluoromethyl)
hexane
HFC­
227ea
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane
methyl
formate
HCOOCH3
following
nomenclature
designations
"
HFE­
7100"
to
1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4­
nonafluoro­
4­
methoxy­
butane
(
C4F9OCH3)
and
"
HFE­
7200"
to
1­
ethoxy­
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4­
nonafluorobutane
(
C4F9OC2H5).

III.
The
EPA
Response
to
Comments
In
the
proposal
for
the
exemption
of
4
compounds,
EPA
indicated
that
interested
persons
could
request
that
EPA
hold
a
public
hearing
on
the
proposed
action
(
see
section
307(
d)(
5)(
ii)
of
the
CAA).
EPA
received
no
requests
for
a
public
hearing.

The
EPA
also
provided
for
a
public
comment
period
in
the
proposal.
The
EPA
received
13
comments
on
the
proposal.

The
comments
fell
into
three
general
categories:
1)
comments
in
favor
of
the
exemptions,
2)
comments
of
concern
about
toxicity
and
stratospheric
ozone
depletion,
and
3)
comments
that
object
to
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
20
All
comment
letters
are
in
the
docket
for
this
action.
In
today's
final
action,
we
have
summarized
what
EPA
views
as
the
significant
comments
and
provided
the
Agency's
responses.
We
provide
no
responses
to
favorable
comments
because
they
referred
to
industry's
desire
for
suitable
negligibly­
reactive
compounds
that
would
serve
as
substitutes
for
higher­
reacting
ozone
precursor
compounds.

While
EPA
concurs
that
encouraging
use
of
lower
reactivity
compounds
is
the
policy
basis
for
the
VOC
exemption
approach,
today's
action
focuses
on
the
technical
basis
and
appropriateness
of
exempting
these
four
specific
compounds.

Comment(
s)
with
respect
to
toxicity
and
stratospheric
ozone
depletion
Comment:
One
comment
asserted
that
EPA
should
not
encourage
the
production
of
any
chemical
that
will
enlarge
the
hole
in
the
stratosphere
above
the
Antarctic
or
(
in
the
same
letter
with
reference
to
methyl
formate)
have
properties
that
make
it
toxic,
flammable,
or
cause
pulmonary
damage.

Response:
Section
612
of
40
CFR
part
82
subpart
G
of
the
EPA
SNAP
rule,
requires
EPA
to
establish
a
method
to
identify
alternatives
to
Class
I
(
CFCs,
halons,
carbon
tetrachloride,
methylchoroform,
methyl
bromide,
and
hydrobromofluorocarbons)
and
Class
II
(
HCFCs)

ozone­
depleting
substances
and
to
publish
lists
of
21
acceptable
and
unacceptable
substitutes.
Pursuant
to
SNAP's
rule,
it
is
illegal
to
replace
a
Class
I
or
Class
II
substance
with
any
substitute
which
the
Administrator
determines
may
present
adverse
effects
to
human
health
or
the
environment
where
other
substitutes
have
been
identified
that
reduce
overall
risk
and
are
currently
or
potentially
available.
In
addition,
all
of
the
compounds
affected
by
this
action,
may
be
used
as
an
alternative
to
ozonedepleting
substances
such
as
CFCs
and
HCFCs.

Three
of
the
compounds,
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­
3­

methoxy­
propane,
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane,
and
methyl
formate
are
already
approved
by
the
SNAP
program
as
acceptable
substitutes
for
ozone­
depleting
compounds.
The
fourth
compound,
3­
ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­

dodecafluoro­
2­(
trifluoromethyl)
hexane,
has
not
been
reviewed
by
EPA
under
SNAP
because
it
was
submitted
for
use
in
secondary
loop
refrigeration
systems.
Fluids
used
in
these
systems
are
not
covered
by
the
SNAP
program
(
62
FR
10700,
March
10,
1997).
However,
this
fourth
compound
is
a
member
of
a
larger
class
of
compounds
known
as
HFEs,
and
other
HFEs
have
been
recognized
by
SNAP
as
ODS
substitutes.

The
EPA
uses
the
SNAP
program
to
identify
substitutes
for
ozone­
depleting
compounds,
to
evaluate
the
acceptability
of
these
substitutes,
to
promote
the
use
of
those
substitutes
EPA
determines
to
present
lower
overall
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
(
relative
to
the
Class
I
22
and
Class
II
compounds
being
replaced,
as
well
as
to
other
substitutes
for
the
same
end­
use),
and
to
prohibit
the
use
of
those
substitutes
found,
based
on
the
same
comparisons,

to
increase
overall
risks.
EPA's
SNAP
program
has
identified
the
HFCs
as
a
class
of
replacement
substitutes
for
CFCs.
Because
they
do
not
contain
chlorine
or
bromine,

they
do
not
deplete
the
ozone
layer.
All
HFCs
have
an
ozone
depletion
potential
(
ODP)
of
0
although
some
HFCs
have
high
global
warming
potential
(
GWP).

In
its
VOC
exemption
petition,
3M
points
out
that
it
has
requested
EPA
list
the
compound
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­

heptafluoro­
3­
methoxy­
propane
as
an
acceptable
substitute
for
CFCs
and
HCFCs
in
certain
uses
and;
as
such,
use
of
this
substance
may
mitigate
depletion
of
stratospheric
ozone.

Although
3­
ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­
dodecafluoro­
2­

(
trifluoromethyl)
hexane
has
not
been
identified
as
a
substitute,
specifically,
the
SNAP
program
has
identified
HFEs,
as
a
class,
as
replacement
substitutes
for
CFCs.

Great
Lakes
also
claims
in
its
VOC
exemption
petition
that
HFC­
227ea
is
not
an
ozone­
depleting
substance.
EPA
has
approved
this
compound
under
the
SNAP
program
as
an
acceptable
substitute
for
Halon
1301
and
Halon
1211
in
various
fire
suppression
applications.
As
stated
in
the
background
section
above,
EPA
has
determined
HFC­
227ea
to
have
a
GWP
at
3800
times
that
of
carbon
dioxide,
making
it
a
probable
substitute
for
its
competitor
fire
suppressants
23
which
have
even
higher
GWPs.

In
approving
methyl
formate
as
an
acceptable
substitute
for
CFC's
and
HCFC's,
EPA's
SNAP
Program
noted
that
methyl
formate
is
toxic
and
flammable
and
should
be
handled
by
users
with
proper
precautions.
Methyl
formate
causes
irritation
to
the
eyes,
skin,
and
lungs,
and
at
high
levels
may
cause
pulmonary
damage.
However,
EPA
believes
that
use
of
methyl
formate
is
well
regulated
by
other
programs;

therefore,
exposures
to
this
compound
will
be
below
levels
of
concern.
The
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
has
established
an
enforceable
occupational
exposure
limit
of
100
ppm
as
an
8­
hour
timeweighted
average.
The
National
Institute
for
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
(
NIOSH)
has
also
established
a
short­
term
exposure
limit
(
averaged
over
15
minutes)
of
150
ppm.
There
is
only
one
supplier
of
methyl
formate
in
the
U.
S.,
and
its
total
production
is
less
than
10
million
pounds
per
year.

We
estimate
that
use
of
methyl
formate
as
an
HCFC
replacement
in
the
foam
sector
will
be
relatively
small,

reaching
2.5
million
pounds
between
years
2008
and
2010.

Although
we
do
not
have
information
on
all
the
possible
exposure
scenarios
for
methyl
formate,
based
on
information
provided
by
industry,
the
air
concentration
levels
reached
in
testing
methyl
formate
as
a
foam
blowing
agent
have
been
less
than
10
ppm
(
without
ventilation),
a
concentration
well
below
the
occupational
exposure
limits
set
by
other
24
agencies.

Comment(
s)
with
respect
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
Comment:
The
EPA
received
a
number
of
comments
opposing
the
implementation
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.
According
to
the
commenters,
this
requirement
would
cause
some
inequity
in
marketability
and
in
costburden
for
their
chemicals,
resulting
in
a
competitive
advantage
to
companies
producing
the
chemicals
that
EPA
had
previously
exempted.
Client
companies
and
States'

environmental
agencies
would
bear
the
burden
of
additional
recordkeeping
and
reporting
costs.
Could
the
same
information
be
gotten
from
manufacturers?
Could
EPA
employ
purchase
and
use
records
as
inventories?
Also,
there
is
concern
that
EPA
will
impose
daily
recordkeeping
and
reporting
in
order
to
follow
multi­
day
ozone
events
and
ozone
transport
phenomena.
Another
point
for
discussion
questions
how
adequate
atmospheric
modeling
can
be
done
without
data
to
represent
the
total
of
over
forty
compounds
that
have
been
exempted
already.
Can
EPA
find
an
optional
method
to
atmospheric
modeling?
The
EPA
may
be
wiser
to
defer
recordkeeping
and
reporting
considerations
until
after
development
of
the
forthcoming
reactivity
policy
reassessment.

Response:
The
EPA
agrees
that
it
would
be
more
appropriate
to
address
this
issue
as
part
of
the
reassessment
of
our
overall
reactivity
policy.
We
have
25
therefore
decided
not
to
include
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
today's
rule.

We
recognize
that
most
organic
compounds
that
EPA
has
exempted
as
"
negligibly
reactive"
do
have
some
photochemical
reactivity,
albeit
small.
At
some
future
point
during
the
reassessment
of
our
reactivity
policy,
in
order
to
develop
an
accurate
assessment
of
the
atmospheric
chemistry,
EPA
may
need
to
begin
incorporating
at
least
some
of
the
widely
used
exempt
VOCs
into
a
model
that
determines
a
significant,
or
insignificant,
or
possibly
even
a
beneficial
environmental
impact.
An
assessment
toward
this
end
has
begun
already
under
the
aegis
of
an
ongoing
Reactivity
Research
Working
Group
(
RRWG)
investigation
of
the
current
scientific
findings.

This
type
of
modeling
effort
may
require
better
speciated
inventories
of
organic
compounds,
including
compounds
that
we
have
exempted
from
the
VOC
definition.

Thus,
it
may
be
necessary
to
develop
some
sort
of
system
for
gathering
more
accurate
information
about
these
compounds
­

at
least
those
that
are
widely
used.
(
In
this
regard,
we
note
that
the
four
compounds
we
are
excluding
from
the
VOC
definition
today
are
expected
to
be
used
in
relatively
small
amounts.)
Rather
than
addressing
this
issue
in
today's
rule,
which
applies
to
only
four
compounds,
we
intend
to
address
it
more
broadly
in
our
upcoming
notice
dealing
with
our
overall
VOC
policy.

Again,
with
this
action,
the
EPA
is
not
finalizing
a
26
decision
on
how
future
petitions
will
be
evaluated.
As
noted
above,
the
Agency
is
currently
in
the
process
of
assessing
its
overall
policy
toward
regulating
VOCs
with
the
inclusion
of
multi­
day
ozone
and
ozone
transport
events,
as
well
as
toxicity
ans
stratospheric
ozone
depletion
and
global
warming
potential
concerns.
We
intend
to
publish
in
the
near
future
a
notice
inviting
public
comment
on
the
VOC
exemption
policy
and
the
concept
of
negligible
reactivity
as
part
of
a
broader
review
of
overall
policy.

IV.
Final
Action
Today's
final
action
is
based
on
EPA's
review
of
the
material
in
Docket
No.
OAR­
2003­
0086.
The
EPA
hereby
amends
its
definition
of
VOC
at
40
CFR
51.100(
s)
to
exclude
the
compounds
in
Table
3
from
the
term
"
VOC"
for
ozone
SIP
and
ozone
control
purposes.
States
are
not
obligated
to
exclude
from
control
as
a
VOC
those
compounds
that
EPA
has
found
to
be
negligibly
reactive.
However,
as
this
action
is
made
final,
States
may
not
include
reductions
in
emissions
of
these
compounds
in
their
calculations
for
determining
reasonable
further
progress
under
the
CAA
(
e.
g.,
section
182(
b)(
1))
and
may
not
take
credit
for
controlling
these
compounds
in
their
ozone
control
strategy.

V.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,

1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
27
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
this
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:

(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,

jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,

local,
or
Tribal
governments
or
communities;

(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligation
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
rule
is
a
"
significant
regulatory
action."
As
such,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.

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
contain
28
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
USC
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
29
regulation
would
impose
a
substantial
impact
on
a
significant
number
of
small
entities.
Because
this
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
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
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.
Today's
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
30
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
31
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
32
the
various
levels
of
government."

This
action
addressing
the
exemption
of
four
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
specifically
solicited
comment
on
the
proposed
rule
for
this
final
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
33
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
solicited
comment
on
the
proposed
rule
for
this
final
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
34
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

While
this
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866,
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
that
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
the
four
above
listed
chemical
compounds
affect
children's
health.
The
EPA
has
placed
the
available
data
regarding
the
health
effects
of
these
four
chemical
compounds
in
docket
no.
OAR­
2003­
0086.
The
EPA
invites
the
public
to
submit
or
identify
peer­
reviewed
studies
and
data,

of
which
EPA
may
not
be
aware,
that
assess
results
of
early
life
exposure
to
any
of
the
four
above
listed
chemical
compounds.

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
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

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
35
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.
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
upon
publication
in
the
Federal
36
Register.
This
final
rule
is
a
deregulatory
action
and,

therefore,
does
not
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,

and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Also,
this
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
The
deregulatory
nature
of
this
final
rule
will
result
in
a
cost
benefit
for
industries
using
or
manufacturing
these
chemical
compounds.

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:

_________________________
Michael
Leavitt,
Administrator.
37
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
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401­
7641q
2.
Section
51.100
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
s)(
5)

as
follows:

§
51.100
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*

(
s)
*
*
*
38
(
1)
This
includes
any
such
organic
compound
other
than
the
following,
which
have
been
determined
to
have
negligible
photochemical
reactivity:
methane;
ethane;
methylene
chloride
(
dichloromethane);
1,1,1­
trichloroethane
(
methyl
chloroform);
1,1,2­
trichloro­
1,2,2­
trifluoroethane
(
CFC­

113);
trichlorofluoromethane
(
CFC­
11);

dichlorodifluoromethane
(
CFC­
12);
chlorodifluoromethane
(
HCFC­
22);
trifluoromethane
(
HFC­
23);
1,2­
dichloro
1,1,2,2­

tetrafluoroethane
(
CFC­
114);
chloropentafluoroethane
(
CFC­

115);
1,1,1­
trifluoro
2,2­
dichloroethane
(
HCFC­
123);

1,1,1,2­
tetrafluoroethane
(
HFC­
134a);
1,1­
dichloro
1­

fluoroethane
(
HCFC­
141b);
1­
chloro
1,1­
difluoroethane
(
HCFC­

142b);
2­
chloro­
1,1,1,2­
tetrafluoroethane
(
HCFC­
124);

pentafluoroethane
(
HFC­
125);
1,1,2,2­
tetrafluoroethane
(
HFC­

134);
1,1,1­
trifluoroethane
(
HFC­
143a);
1,1­
difluoroethane
(
HFC­
152a);
parachlorobenzotrifluoride
(
PCBTF);
cyclic,

branched,
or
linear
completely
methylated
siloxanes;

acetone;
perchloroethylene
(
tetrachloroethylene);
3,3­

dichloro­
1,1,1,2,2­
pentafluoropropane
(
HCFC­
225ca);
1,3­

dichloro­
1,1,2,2,3­
pentafluoropropane
(
HCFC­
225cb);

1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5­
decafluoropentane
(
HFC
43­
10mee);

difluoromethane
(
HFC­
32);
ethylfluoride
(
HFC­
161);

1,1,1,3,3,3­
hexafluoropropane
(
HFC­
236fa);
1,1,2,2,3­

pentafluoropropane
(
HFC­
245ca);

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

pentafluoropropane
(
HFC­
245eb);
1,1,1,3,3­
pentafluoropropane
(
HFC­
245fa);
1,1,1,2,3,3­
hexafluoropropane
(
HFC­
236ea);
39
1,1,1,3,3­
pentafluorobutane
(
HFC­
365mfc);

chlorofluoromethane
(
HCFC­
31);
1
chloro­
1­
fluoroethane
(
HCFC­
151a);
1,2­
dichloro­
1,1,2­
trifluoroethane
(
HCFC­
123a);

1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4­
nonafluoro­
4­
methoxy­
butane
(
C4F9OCH3
or
HFE­
7100);
2­(
difluoromethoxymethyl)­
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­

heptafluoropropane
((
CF3)
2CFCF2OCH3);
1­
ethoxy­

1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4­
nonafluorobutane
(
C4F9OC2H5
or
HFE­
7200);

2­(
ethoxydifluoromethyl)­
1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane
((
CF3)
2CFCF2OC2H5);
methyl
acetate,
1,1,1,2,2,3,3­
heptafluoro­

3­
methoxy­
propane
(
n­
C3F7OCH3),

3­
ethoxy­
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6­
dodecafluoro­
2­

(
trifluoromethyl)
hexane
(
HFE­
7500),

1,1,1,2,3,3,3­
heptafluoropropane
(
HFC
227ea),
and
methyl
formate
(
HCOOCH3),
and
perfluorocarbon
compounds
which
fall
into
these
classes:

(
i)
cyclic,
branched,
or
linear,
completely
fluorinated
alkanes;

(
ii)
cyclic,
branched,
or
linear,
completely
fluorinated
ethers
with
no
unsaturations;

(
iii)
cyclic,
branched,
or
linear,
completely
fluorinated
tertiary
amines
with
no
unsaturations;
and
(
iv)
sulfur
containing
perfluorocarbons
with
no
unsaturations
and
with
sulfur
bonds
only
to
carbon
and
fluorine.

*
*
*
*
*
40