Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds-Exclusion of Propylene Carbonate and Dimethyl Carbonate, 3437-3441 [E9-1150]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3437-3441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1150]



[[Page 3437]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948; FRL-8763-7]
RIN 2060-AN75


Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic 
Compounds--Exclusion of Propylene Carbonate and Dimethyl Carbonate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises EPA's definition of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) for purposes of preparing state implementation plans 
(SIPs) to attain the national ambient air quality standard for ozone 
under Title I of the Clean Air Act (Act). This revision adds the 
compounds propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate to the list of 
compounds which are excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis 
that these compounds make a negligible contribution to tropospheric 
ozone formation.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0948, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0948 is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Johnson, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code 
C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5245.; 
fax number: 919-541-0824; e-mail address: Johnson.WilliamL@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be an entity affected by this policy change if you use or 
emit propylene carbonate or dimethyl carbonate. States which have 
programs to control VOC emissions will also be affected by this change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Examples of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.........................  Industries that make and use
                                    coatings, adhesives, inks or which
                                    perform paint stripping or pesticide
                                    application.
States...........................  States that control VOC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware of 
that could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be affected. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. This action has no substantial direct 
effects on industry because it does not impose any new mandates on 
these entities, but, to the contrary, removes two chemical compounds 
from the regulatory definition of VOC, and therefore from regulation 
for federal purposes.

B. How is this preamble organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

Outline

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How is this preamble organized?
II. Background
    A. Propylene Carbonate
    B. Dimethyl Carbonate
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12848: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

II. Background

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOCs and 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere. Because of 
the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state governments limit 
the amount of VOCs and NOX that can be released into the 
atmosphere. The VOCs are those organic compounds of carbon which form 
ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Different VOCs have 
different levels of reactivity--that is, they do not react to form 
ozone at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent. Some 
VOCs react slowly, and changes in their emissions have limited effects 
on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been EPA's policy 
that organic compounds with a negligible level of reactivity should be 
excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC, so as to focus VOC 
control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase ozone 
concentrations. The EPA also believes that exempting such compounds 
creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds 
in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. 
The EPA lists these negligibly reactive compounds in its regulations 
(at 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and excludes them from the definition of VOCs.
    Since 1977, EPA has used the reactivity of ethane as the threshold 
for determining negligible reactivity. Compounds that are less reactive 
than, or equally reactive to, ethane under the assumed conditions may 
be deemed negligibly reactive. Compounds that are more reactive than 
ethane continue to be considered reactive VOCs and therefore subject to 
control requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound 
was based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the 
1977 policy.
    In the past, EPA has considered three different metrics to compare 
the reactivity of a specific compound to that of ethane: (i) The 
reaction rate constant with the hydroxyl radical (known as 
kOH), (ii) maximum incremental reactivities (MIR) expressed 
on a reactivity per gram basis, and (iii) MIR expressed on a reactivity 
per mole basis. Table 1 presents these three reactivity metrics for 
ethane and for the two compounds discussed in this rule. Differences 
between these three metrics are discussed below.

[[Page 3438]]



                     Table 1--Reactivities of Ethane and Compounds Considered for Exemption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             MIR (g O3/mole
                 Compound                       kOH (cm3/molecule-sec)            VOC)        MIR (g O3/gramVOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane....................................  2.4 x 10-13..................               8.12               0.27
Propylene carbonate.......................  6.9 x 10-13..................              27.56               0.27
Dimethyl carbonate........................  3.49 x 10-13.................               5.04               0.056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Notes: 
    1. kOH value for ethane is from: R. Atkinson., D. L. 
Baulch, R. A. Cox, J. N. Crowley, R. F. Hampson, Jr., R. G. Hynes, 
M. E. Jenkin, J. A. Kerr, M. J. Rossi and J. Troe (2004), Summary of 
Evaluated Kinetic and Photochemical Data for Atmospheric Chemistry
    2. kOH value for propylene carbonate is reported in: 
W.P.L. Carter, D. Luo, I.L. Malkina, E.C. Tuazon, S.M. Aschmann, and 
R. Atkinson (July 8, 1996), ``Investigation of the Atmospheric Ozone 
Formation Potential of t-butyl Alcohol, N-Methyl Pyrrolidinone and 
Propylene Carbonate.'' University of California--Riverside. ftp://
ftp.cert.ucr.edu/pub/carter/pubs/arcorpt.pdf.
    3. kOH value for dimethyl carbonate is reported in: 
Y. Katrib, G. Deiber, P. Mirabel, S. LeCalve, C. George, A. 
Mellouki, and G. Le Bras (2002), ``Atmospheric loss processes of 
dimethyl and diethyl carbonate,'' J. Atmos. Chem., 43: 151-174.
    4. All maximum incremental reactivities or MIR (g O3/
g VOC) values are from: W. P. L. Carter, ``Development of the SAPRC-
07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone Reactivity Scales,'' 
Appendix B, July 7, 2008. This may be found at https://
www.engr.ucr.edu/~carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf. These values have been 
revised slightly from those given in the proposal notice (72 FR 
55717).
    5. MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were calculated from 
the MIR (g O3/g VOC) values by determining the number of 
moles per gram of the relevant organic compound.

    The kOH is the reaction rate constant of the compound 
with the OH radical in the air. This reaction is typically the first 
step in a series of chemical reactions by which a compound breaks down 
in the air and participates in the ozone forming process. If this step 
is slow, the compound will likely not form ozone at a very fast rate. 
The kOH values have long been used by EPA as a measure of 
photochemical reactivity and ozone forming activity, and they have been 
the basis for most of EPA's previous exclusions of negligibly reactive 
compounds. The kOH metric is inherently molar, i.e., it 
measures the rate at which molecules react.
    The MIR values, both by mole and by mass, are more recently 
developed measures of photochemical reactivity derived from a computer-
based photochemical model. These measures consider the complete ozone 
forming activity of a compound, not merely the first reaction step. 
Further explanation of the MIR metric can be found in: W. P. L. Carter, 
``Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic 
Compositions,'' Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol 
44, 881-899, July 1994.
    The MIR values are usually expressed either as grams of ozone 
formed per mole of VOC (molar basis) or as grams of ozone formed per 
gram of VOC (mass basis). For comparing the reactivities of two 
compounds, using the molar MIR values considers an equal number of 
molecules of the two compounds. Alternatively, using the mass MIR 
values compares an equal mass of the two compounds, which will involve 
different numbers of molecules, depending on the relative molecular 
weights. The molar MIR comparison is consistent with the original smog 
chamber experiments, which compared equal molar concentrations of 
individual VOCs, that underlie the original selection of ethane as the 
threshold compound. It is also consistent with previous reactivity 
determinations based on inherently molar kOH values. The 
mass MIR comparison is consistent with how MIR values and other 
reactivity metrics are applied in reactivity-based emission limits, 
specifically the California Air Resources Board rule for aerosol 
coatings (see https://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/regs/apt.pdf ).
    Given the relatively low molecular weight of ethane, use of the 
mass basis tends to result in more VOCs falling into the ``negligibly 
reactive'' class versus the molar basis. This means that, in some 
cases, a compound might be considered less reactive than ethane and 
eligible for VOC exemption under the mass basis but not under the molar 
basis. One of the compounds considered in this action falls into this 
situation, where the molar MIR value is greater than that of ethane, 
but the mass MIR value is less than or equal to that of ethane. This 
compound is propylene carbonate.
    The EPA has considered the choice between a molar or mass basis for 
the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. The design 
of the VOC exemption policy, including the choice between a mass and 
mole basis, has been critiqued in the published literature.\1\ Most 
recently, in ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic 
Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' published on September 
13, 2005 (70 FR 54046), EPA stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Relying on a comparison of mass MIR values consistent with this 
guidance, EPA proposed to revise its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 
51.100(s) to add propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate to the list 
of compounds that are exempt because they are negligibly reactive since 
they are equal to or less reactive than ethane on a mass basis. For 
propylene carbonate, EPA invited comment on the alternative use of a 
molar basis for the comparison of these compounds to ethane.
    The technical rationale for recommending an exemption for each of 
the individual compounds is given below:

A. Propylene Carbonate

    Huntsman Corporation submitted a petition to EPA on July 27, 1999, 
requesting that propylene carbonate be exempted from VOC control based 
on its low reactivity relative to ethane.
    Propylene carbonate (CAS registry number 108-32-7) is an odorless 
non-viscous clear liquid with a low vapor pressure (0.023 mm Hg at 20( 
C) and low evaporation rate compared to many other commonly used 
organic solvents. It has been used in cosmetics, as an adhesive 
component in food packaging, as a solvent for plasticizers and 
synthetic fibers and polymers, and as a solvent for aerial pesticide 
application.

[[Page 3439]]

    Huntsman submitted several pieces of information to support its 
petition, all of which have been added to the docket for this action. 
One of these pieces of information was ``Investigation of the 
Atmospheric Ozone Formation Potential of t-butyl Alcohol, N-Methyl 
Pyrrolidinone and Propylene Carbonate'' by William P. L. Carter, 
Dongmin Luo, Irina L. Malkina, Ernesto C. Tuazon, Sara M. Aschmann, and 
Roger Atkinson, University of California at Riverside, July 8, 1996. 
Table 8 of that reference lists the MIR for propylene carbonate (on a 
gram basis) as 1.43 times higher than that of ethane. However, in Table 
1 above, EPA has shown a 2007 MIR value that was taken from more recent 
2007 data from Dr. Carter's Web site. This 2007 MIR value is lower than 
that of ethane on a mass basis.
    From the data in Table 1, it can be seen that propylene carbonate 
has a higher kOH value than ethane, meaning that it 
initially reacts more quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. A molecule 
of propylene carbonate is also more reactive than a molecule of ethane, 
as shown by the molar MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values, since 
equal numbers of moles have equal numbers of molecules. However, a gram 
of propylene carbonate is less reactive, or creates less ozone on the 
day of its emission to the atmosphere, than a gram of ethane. This is 
because propylene carbonate has a molecular weight (102), which is over 
three times that of ethane (30), thus requiring less than a third the 
number of molecules of propylene carbonate to weigh a gram than the 
number of molecules of ethane needed to weigh a gram.
    Based on the mass MIR (g O3/g VOC) value for propylene 
carbonate being equal to or less than that of ethane, EPA finds that 
propylene carbonate is ``negligibly reactive'' and therefore exempt for 
the regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). EPA took comments 
on whether the comparison of propylene carbonate to ethane should 
instead be made on the basis of the molar MIR (g O3/mole 
VOC) value. None of the comments received during the public comment 
period opposed using the g O3/g VOC basis. In fact, the 
comments which addressed that issue supported the use of the MIR on a g 
O3/g VOC basis for granting exemptions.

B. Dimethyl Carbonate

    The EPA received a petition from Kowa America Corporation on July 
29, 2004 seeking an exemption from the regulatory definition of VOC for 
dimethyl carbonate. This petition asserted that dimethyl carbonate 
(DMC) is less photochemically reactive than ethane and asked for the 
exemption on that basis.
    Dimethyl carbonate (CAS registry number 616-38-6) may be used as a 
solvent in paints and coatings. The petitioner anticipated that it 
might be used in waterborne paints and adhesives because it is 
partially water soluble. It is also used as a methylation and 
carbonylation agent in organic synthesis. It can be used as a fuel 
additive.
    In support of its petition, the petitioner presented articles which 
give kOH and MIR values for the compound. These articles 
have been placed in the docket.
    As shown in Table 1, DMC has a greater kOH value than 
ethane, which indicates that DMC will likely initially react more 
quickly in the atmosphere. However, the MIR values for DMC calculated 
on either a mass or mole basis are less than that of ethane, which 
indicates lower reactivity overall. Based on these data, EPA finds that 
DMC is ``negligibly reactive'' and therefore exempt from the regulatory 
definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). Because both the mass and molar 
MIR values of DMC are less than those of ethane, this chemical meets 
EPA's exemption criteria under either MIR metric.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA proposed these actions on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55717) and 
took public comment on the proposal. Here is a summary of the comments 
received during the public comment period and EPA's response. There was 
no request for a public hearing on the proposal and none was held.
    There were four comment letters submitted to the docket during the 
public comment period. One comment letter was from an individual. Two 
were from chemical companies. One comment letter was from a trade 
association. The comments are summarized below.
    Comment: The Web site reference for the latest MIR values contained 
an error. The site which was listed as https://pah.cert.ucr.edu/carter/
SAPRC/scales07.xls should have been https://pah.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/
SAPRC/scales07.xls.
    Response: We left out the ~ sign in the Web address which made it 
incorrect. The latest MIR data which is used in this final rule may be 
found in Appendix B of the July 7, 2008 report by William P. L. Carter 
``Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone 
Reactivity Scales.'' This report may be found at https://
www.engr.ucr.edu/~carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf.
    Comment: One commenter corrected certain technical information 
about the evaporation rate of dimethyl carbonate which was listed in 
the docket.
    Response: This correction is noted, but this minor change did not 
impact whether or not EPA should finalize the exemption petition.
    Comment: One commenter supported the use of the latest MIR values 
for making VOC exemption determinations. There were no comments 
opposing the use of the latest MIR values.
    Response: EPA acknowledged recent MIR values which were made public 
shortly before the proposal to grant VOC exemption to propylene 
carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, but based the proposal on older MIR 
values which had been previously published. EPA is using the latest MIR 
values for this final rule.\2\ The use of the newer MIR values does not 
change the conclusion about the VOC exemption of propylene carbonate 
and dimethyl carbonate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MIR values used for this rule may be found in Appendix B 
of the July 7, 2008 report by William P.L. Carter ``Development of 
the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism and Updated Ozone Reactivity 
Scales.'' This report may be found at https://www.engr.ucr.edu/
carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf or in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The two industry commenters, and the trade association 
comment letter each expressed support for the VOC exemption of 
propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate.
    Response: EPA acknowledges this support and notes that there were 
no comments opposing these exemptions.
    Comment: Three commenters opposed separate tracking and reporting 
for propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate. Two of these commenters 
also expressed opposition for separate tracking for any VOC exempt 
compounds.
    Response: Although the rule preamble encourages record keeping for 
propylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, there is no requirement for 
this in the rule itself. Record keeping for other exempt compounds is 
not the subject of this rulemaking, so comments about that are not 
relevant to this action.
    Comment: Three of the commenters support the use of the mass-based 
MIR approach versus the mole-based approach. One of the commenters 
submitted as part of his comments a November 15, 1999 letter written by 
William P.L. Carter supporting the use of impact per mass as an 
appropriate basis for comparing ozone reactivities when making VOC 
exemption decisions. This Carter letter had previously been submitted 
to EPA as part of the tertiary butyl acetate VOC exemption rule making 
(69 FR 69298).

[[Page 3440]]

There were no comments opposing the use of the mass-based MIR approach.
    Response: EPA specifically requested comment on this subject for 
propylene carbonate since the mole based MIR value for that compound is 
higher than that of ethane and using the mole based MIR value would not 
allow the exemption for propylene carbonate. Because there were no 
comments opposed to the use of the mass based approach, EPA is 
proceeding to grant these exemptions on a mass based MIR basis in 
keeping with the September 13, 2005 interim guidance on control of 
volatile organic compounds in ozone state implementation plans which 
says ``EPA will continue to compare them [i.e., compounds] to ethane 
using kOH expressed on a molar basis and MIR values 
expressed on a mass basis.''
    Comment: One commenter, who was the petitioner for dimethyl 
carbonate, said that the company recommended exposure limit of 200 ppm 
time weighted average 8 hour for dimethyl carbonate is identical to 
that of methyl acetate, an existing VOC exempt solvent. This commenter 
also said that methyl acetate like DMC has the potential for 
hydrolyzing to form methanol in the body and therefore they would be 
similar in their toxicity profiles and safety handling requirements. 
The commenter also denied a statement in Hawley's Condensed Chemical 
Dictionary that DMC is both toxic by inhalation and a strong irritant.
    Response: In the proposal, EPA said ``While EPA does not have 
information to suggest that the proposed exemptions could increase 
health risks due to possible toxicity of the exempted compounds, we 
invite the public to submit comments and additional information 
relevant to this issue.'' The comments here are the only comments EPA 
received regarding health effects of these compounds. These comments 
have not led EPA to identify unusual health risks from the compounds.

IV. Final Action

    This action is based on EPA's review of the material in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0948. The EPA hereby amends its definition of VOC 
at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude propylene carbonate and dimethyl 
carbonate from the regulatory definition of VOC for use in ozone SIPs 
and ozone controls for purposes of attaining the ozone national ambient 
air quality standard.
    The revised definition will also apply for purposes of any federal 
implementation plan for ozone nonattainment areas (see e.g., 40 CFR 
52.741(a)(3)). States are not obligated to exclude from control as a 
VOC those compounds that EPA has found to be negligibly reactive. 
However, if this action is made final, states should not include these 
compounds in their VOC emissions inventories for determining reasonable 
further progress under the Act (e.g., section 182(b)(1)) and may not 
take credit for controlling these compounds in their ozone control 
strategy.
    Excluding a compound from the regulatory definition of VOC may lead 
to changes in the amount of the exempt compound used and the types of 
applications in which the exempt compound is used. Although the final 
rule has no mandatory reporting requirements, EPA urges states to 
continue to inventory the emissions of these compounds for use in 
photochemical modeling.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action is deregulatory 
in nature and removes requirements rather than adds requirements. The 
regulation is a rule change that revises a definition of volatile 
organic compound and imposes no record keeping or reporting 
requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare 
a regulatory analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statue unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final action on 
small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule 
will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule concerns 
only the definition of VOC and does not directly regulate any entities. 
The RFA analysis does not consider impacts on entities which the action 
in question does not regulate. See Motor & Equipment Manufacturers 
Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F. 3d 449, 467 (D.C. Cir. 1998); United 
Distribution Cos. v. FERC, 88 F. 3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. 
denied, 520 U.S. 1224 (1997). Pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), I hereby certify that the rule will not have an impact on small 
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for state, local, and tribal governments and the private 
sector. Since this rule is deregulatory in nature and does not impose a 
mandate upon any source, this rule is not estimated to result in the 
expenditure by state, local and tribal governments or the private 
sector of $100 million in any 1 year. Therefore, the Agency has not 
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the 
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or 
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a 
plan with regard to small governments. This action is also not subject 
to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. As discussed above, this final rule does not impose 
any new requirements on small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in

[[Page 3441]]

the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial 
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the state, on the relationship 
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule concerns only the 
definition of VOC. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
rule.

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

    This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
This action does not have any direct effects on Indian Tribes. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not 
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or 
safety risks.

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

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this 
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. The final rule amendment is deregulatory and does allow 
relaxation of the control measures on sources. However, this is not 
expected to lead to increased ozone formation since the compounds being 
exempted have been determined to have negligible photochemical 
reactivity.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States, Section 804 exempts form section 801 the following types of 
rules: (1) Rules of particular application; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties, 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not 
required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability to manufacturers 
and users of these specific exempt chemical compounds. This action is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this 
rule will be effective on February 20, 2009.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

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

    Dated: January 13, 2009.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
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

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 is amended at the end of paragraph (s)(1) 
introductory text by removing the words ``and perfluorocarbon compounds 
which fall into these classes:'' and adding in their place a semi-colon 
and the words ``propylene carbonate; dimethyl carbonate; and 
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:''.

 [FR Doc. E9-1150 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P