[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52373-52378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22449]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 52373]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-7552-2]
RIN 2060-AK37


Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic 
Compounds--Exclusion of 4 Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise 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 
proposed 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.
    With this proposed action the EPA is not finalizing a decision on 
how future petitions will be evaluated. EPA is currently 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.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by October 3, 2003. 
Requests for a hearing must be submitted by September 18, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention: 
Docket No. A-2002-03, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments should be 
strictly limited to the subject matter of this proposal, the scope of 
which is discussed below.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts EPA requesting a public hearing, 
it will be held at Research Triangle Park, NC. Persons wishing to 
request a public hearing, wanting to attend the hearing or wishing to 
present oral testimony should notify Mr. David Sanders, Air Quality 
Strategies and Standards Division (C539-02), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 
541-3356. The EPA will publish notice of a hearing, if requested, in 
the Federal Register. Any hearing will be strictly limited to the 
subject matter of the proposal, the scope of which is discussed below. 
The EPA has established a public docket for this action, A-2002-03, 
which is available for public inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. 
and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, at EPA's 
Docket Center, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

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. 
Interested persons may call Mr. Sanders to see if a hearing will be 
held and the date and location of any hearing.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those (in the list 
matrix below) which use and emit VOC as well as States which 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 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 regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table have the potential of being regulated.
    The four compounds we are proposing to exclude 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 ozone-depleting 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 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 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). 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 ODS substitutes.
    The EPA uses the SNAP program to identify substitutes for ozone-
depleting compounds, evaluate the acceptability of these substitutes, 
promote the use of those substitutes EPA determines to present lower 
overall risks to human health and the environment (relative to the 
class I and class II compounds being replaced, as well as to other 
substitutes for the same end-use), and prohibit the use of those 
substitutes found, based on the same comparisons, to increase overall 
risks. The 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 approving methyl formate as an acceptable substitute for CFC's 
and HCFC's, the 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,

[[Page 52374]]

skin, and lungs, and at high levels may cause pulmonary damage. 
However, EPA believes that methyl formate is well regulated by other 
programs; therefore, exposures to this compound will be below levels of 
concern. OSHA has established an enforceable occupational exposure 
limit of 100 ppm as an 8-hr time-weighted average. NIOSH has also 
established a short-term exposure limit (averaged over 15 mins) of 150 
ppm. There is only one supplier of methyl formate in the U.S., and 
their 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 
2008-2010. Although we do not have information on all the possible 
exposure scenarios to 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.
    The four compounds will continue to be VOC for purposes of all 
record keeping, emissions reporting, and inventory requirements which 
apply to VOC. The EPA believes that it is important to continue 
collecting data on new exempt organic compound emissions for the 
following reasons:
    (a) EPA wants to investigate the possibility that some compounds 
classified as ``negligibly reactive'' or which are not defined as VOC 
for purposes of VOC emissions limitations or VOC content requirements 
may, in fact, contribute to ozone formation under certain conditions, 
especially if there are large amounts of such emissions;
    (b) EPA wants to investigate whether significant aggregate 
emissions of ``negligibly reactive'' compounds or of compounds which 
are not defined as VOC for purposes of VOC emissions limitations or VOC 
content requirements may contribute to multi-day ozone events and to 
ozone transport;
    (c) EPA believes that in order to have more accurate modeling, it 
may be necessary to keep track of exempt compound emissions, especially 
if there are large amounts of such emissions;
    (d) EPA is now in the process of assessing its VOC policy in 
general, and its VOC exemption policy in particular, and data about the 
impacts of VOC exemptions on such things as the volume of exempt 
compound use, the effects of an exemption on ambient ozone conditions, 
and the verification of VOC substitution are critical information that 
can only be obtained through continued record keeping and reporting. 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.
    Also, we are proposing to make a nomenclature clarification to two 
previously exempted compounds. We propose to add the designations HFE-
7100 to 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane 
(C4F9OH) and HFE-7200 to 1-ethoxy-
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane 
(C4F9OCH2H5). 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.
    To determine whether your organization is regulated by this action, 
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  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.

I. 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. Volatile organic compounds are those compounds of carbon 
(excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic 
carbides or 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 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) 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 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 to or delete 
them from the list.
    The EPA's decision to exempt certain compounds in its 1977 policy 
was heavily influenced by experimental smog chamber work done 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 
ppmv). As the compound was allowed to react with NOX at 
concentrations of 0.2 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 
the oxidant standard to be exceeded. The compound could then be 
considered to be 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 designated ethane as negligibly reactive, and ethane became the 
benchmark VOC species separating reactive from negligibly reactive 
compounds.
    Since 1977, the 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 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., [middot]OH). This reaction is very important since it is 
the primary pathway by which most organic compounds initially 
participate in atmospheric photochemical reaction processes. 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, for the first time, considered a comparison to ethane 
based on incremental reactivity (IR) metrics (59 FR 50693, October 5, 
1994). The use of

[[Page 52375]]

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 both on a per mole and per gram basis. In 
1995, EPA considered another compound, acetone, using IR metrics. After 
considering the IR metrics, EPA exempted acetone based on the fact that 
acetone was less reactive on the basis of grams of ozone formed per 
grams of VOC emitted (60 FR 31635, June 16, 1995). Prior to 1994, all 
exemptions had been based on kOH values. Since 1995, EPA has 
exempted one additional compound, methyl acetate, based on comparisons 
of IR metrics. The reactivity of methyl acetate was found to be 
comparable to or less than that for ethane both under a per gram basis 
and under a per mole basis.
    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 considered to be negligibly reactive in 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 
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 hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in certain 
uses and; as such, use of this substance may mitigate depletion of 
stratospheric ozone.

    Table 1.--Potential Uses of Compounds Addressed in This Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Compound                          Potential use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-     --refrigerant
 propane.                                --aerosol propellant
3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-        --refrigerant
 dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)hexane.
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 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-methoxy-propane 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 their respective 
photochemical reactivities. 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, 
(CH3)2CFCF2OC2H5 
which are exempt from the VOC definition.
    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, which has been submitted to the docket. This 
article discusses a study in which the rate constant for the reaction 
of the compounds with the hydroxyl (OH) radical is shown to be less 
than that for ethane and slightly more than for methane. 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 compounds under consideration are listed with their 
reported kOH rate constants in Table 2 along with that of 
ethane. 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.

    Table 2.--Reaction Rate Constants (at 25 [deg]C) With OH Radical
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Compound                        cm\3\/molecule/sec
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together with 5-day and 28-day inhalation toxicity studies, 3M 
Company also has included Material Safety Data Sheets indicating both 
their compounds as having very low toxicity. This information has been 
placed in the docket.
    On February 18, 1998, the Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (``Great 
Lakes'') petitioned EPA for the exclusion 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 
cm\3\/molecule/sec at 277K (0 [deg]C) which places it well under two 
orders of magnitude below ethane's reactivity.
    Great Lakes also claims that HFC-227ea is not an ozone depleting 
substance. This compound has been approved under EPA's 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 probable 
substitute for its competitor fire suppressants which have even higher 
GWPs.
    On February 12, 2002, Foam Supplies, Inc. submitted a petition to 
exclude methyl formate from the definition of VOC. Foam Supplies, Inc. 
submitted journal articles showing three separate studies measuring 
methyl formate's rate constant with hydroxyl radicals and compared this 
to ethane measured in a like manner as a rate constant (cm\3\/molecule/
sec). The highest value tested for methyl formate was that of 2.27 x 
10-13 cm\3\/molecule/sec which is slightly below that of 
ethane at 2.4 x 10-13 cm\3\/molecule/sec (shown in Table 2).

[[Page 52376]]

    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 this compound has been 
approved 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 information on 
kOH value submitted by the petitioner for methyl formate, 
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 Web site 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 given in grams ozone per gram of organic compound. Also, it 
is easy to calculate the MIR on a basis of grams of ozone per mole of 
organic compound. On either basis, methyl formate has a reactivity less 
than half that of ethane. Sections of the Carter report showing ethane 
and methyl formate values have been added to the docket. Also, the data 
may be seen on this same website belonging to Dr. Carter.
    In a similar action related to a petition to exempt tert-butyl 
acetate (TBAC) from the VOC definition (64 FR 52731), EPA raised the 
issue of whether the comparison to ethane should be made on a mass (or 
gram) basis or a molar basis. In the case of the four compounds 
considered here, all four are less reactive than ethane on both mass 
and molar bases and would qualify as negligibly reactive under either 
test.
    While the purpose of exempting negligibly reactive VOCs 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. EPA has included available 
information about the toxicity of the four compounds under 
consideration in the docket. EPA invites public comment 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 proposing in this action 
to add the compounds in Table 3 to the list of compounds appearing in 
40 CFR 51.100(s).

   Table 3.--Compounds Proposed 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-
                                        methoxy-propane
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    Today's proposed action is based on EPA's review of the material in 
Docket No. A-2002-03. The EPA hereby proposes to amend its definition 
of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude the compounds in Table 3 as 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, if this action is made final, States 
should not include these compounds in their VOC emissions inventories 
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.
    In prior VOC exemption decisions, EPA has not required continued 
record keeping and reporting on the use and emissions of the exempt 
compounds. However, more current understanding of the complexities of 
ozone formation suggests that most organic compounds which EPA has 
exempted as ``negligibly reactive'' do have some photochemcial 
reactivity, albeit small. EPA is proposing to retain record keeping and 
reporting requirements for all new exempt organic compound emissions.

IV. 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 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 not ``significant'' because none of the 
listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action is not 
submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any information collection 
requirements subject to OMB review under the

[[Page 52377]]

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq. requires the identification of potentially adverse impacts 
of Federal regulations upon small business entities. The Act 
specifically requires the completion of a RFA analysis in those 
instances where the regulation would impose a substantial impact on a 
significant number of small entities. Because this proposed 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 proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. 
Today's proposed 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 proposed rule 
will not have an impact on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the National 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed 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 solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on

[[Page 52378]]

the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed 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 specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    While this proposed 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. A-2002-03. 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 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 proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

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: August 27, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

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

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

    1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7641q.

    2. Section 51.100 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph 
(s)(5) as follows:


Sec.  51.100  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (5) The following compounds are VOC for purposes of all 
recordkeeping, emissions reporting, and inventory requirements which 
apply to VOC, but are not VOC for purposes of VOC emissions limitations 
or VOC content requirements:
    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).

[FR Doc. 03-22449 Filed 9-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P