[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69290-69298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26070]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-7840-7]
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 be considered to be negligibly reactive. If 
you use or 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

[[Page 69291]]

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 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 December 29, 2004.

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 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 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 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 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 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 the extent to which 
compounds that are exempt from the VOC definition should still be 
subject to recordkeeping, emissions 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

[[Page 69292]]

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 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.

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
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 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 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 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 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).

[[Page 69293]]

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.

                  Table 1.--Potential Uses of Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Compound                          Potential use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,1,2,2,3,3-Heptafluoro-3-methoxy-     Refrigerant; aerosol
 propane.                                 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 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-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 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.
    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.

     Table 2.--Reaction Rate Constants (at 25[deg]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[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. 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 
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 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

[[Page 69294]]

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 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 gram-
basis 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 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 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).

   Table 3.--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-
                                          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. 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. 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 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 ozone-depleting 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

[[Page 69295]]

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 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 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 time-
weighted 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 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 cost-burden 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 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 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 and 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.

[[Page 69296]]

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 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 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 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

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

[[Page 69297]]

regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    This action addressing the exemption of 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 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 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 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 
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: November 18, 2004.
Michael Leavitt,
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 continues to read as follows:


[[Page 69298]]


    Authority: 23 U.S.C.; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7641q.


0
2. Section 51.100 is amended by revising paragraph (s)(1) as follows:

Subpart F--[Amended]


Sec.  51.100  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (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); 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, HFE-7000), 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.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04-26070 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P