[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17331-17333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9247]
[[Page 17331]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL-5992-4]
RIN 2060-AH27
Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds--Exclusion of Methyl Acetate
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
(SIP's) to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (Act) and for any Federal
implementation plan (FIP) for an ozone nonattainment area. This
revision adds methyl acetate to the list of compounds excluded from the
definition of VOC on the basis that this compound has negligible
contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. This compound has
potential for use as a solvent in paints, inks and adhesives.
DATES: This rule is effective May 11, 1998.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a public docket for this action, A-
97-32, which is available for public inspection and copying between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Johnson, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division
(MD-15), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone (919) 541-5245.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which use
and emit VOC and States which have programs to control VOC emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Industries that manufacture
and use paints, inks and
adhesives.
States.................................... States which have
regulations to control
volatile organic compounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table 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 could also be regulated. 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
On July 30, 1996, Eastman Chemical Company submitted a petition to
the EPA which requested that methyl acetate 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 petitioner based the request
on a comparison of the reactivity of methyl acetate to that of ethane
which has been listed since 1977 as having negligible reactivity. In a
number of cases in the past, EPA has accepted compounds with lower
reactivity than ethane as negligibly reactive (see, e.g., 61 FR 4588
(February 7, 1996), 61 FR 52848 (October 8, 1996), and 62 FR 44900
(August 25, 1997)).
As indicated in the proposal, a study was performed comparing the
reactivity of methyl acetate to ethane on a ``per gram'' basis. The EPA
also calculated the results of this study on a ``per mole''
basis.1 Under both sets of tests, the reactivity of methyl
acetate was comparable to or less than that for ethane. Based on these
results, EPA concluded that existing scientific evidence does not
support a methyl acetate reactivity higher than that of ethane.
Therefore, EPA proposed on August 25, 1997 (62 FR 44926) to add methyl
acetate to the list of negligibly reactive compounds in EPA's
definition of VOC found in 40 CFR 51.100(s). The proposal provided for
a 30-day public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA has evaluated most VOC exemption considerations in
the past using kOH values expressed in units of
cm3 molecule-1 sec-1 which is
consistent with a per mole basis. However, in one recent case, EPA
examined a reactivity petition solely on a weight or ``per gram''
basis (60 FR 31633 (June 16, 1995) (exempting acetone from the
definition of VOC)). The use of a reactivity per mole basis is a
more strict basis for comparison to the reactivity of ethane for
compounds whose molecular weight is greater than ethane. Given the
relatively low molecular weight of ethane, use of the per gram basis
tends to result in more compounds falling into the ``negligibly
reactive'' class. Because methyl acetate is less reactive than
ethane based on a per mole basis, EPA is not addressing today
whether it should continue to exempt compounds based on a per gram
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Comments on the Proposal and EPA Response
In the proposal for today's action, 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 Act). There were no requests
for a public hearing.
The EPA received written comments on the proposal from four
organizations. The comments were from the petitioner, one industry
trade association, and two manufacturing companies. Two commenters
supported the action, one opposed the action, and one commenter raised
the issue of banked credits for previous reductions in methyl acetate.
Copies of these comments have been added to the docket (A-97-32) for
this action. Substantial comments and EPA's responses are listed below.
Comment: One commenter found the proposed exclusion troubling as
they understood that EPA is reconsidering the method for determining
photochemical reactivity of VOC and the baseline used to determine
negligible reactivity.
Response: The EPA is beginning a process of evaluating its
reactivity policy in view of scientific information which has been
gained since 1977 when the VOC policy was first published. This
evaluation process, which will involve model development, modeling
studies and collection of new information, is expected to take several
years. However, the EPA has decided to proceed with approving the
methyl acetate petition now even though the Agency is anticipating a
review of its reactivity policy. Methyl acetate shows reactivity
comparable to ethane on a per mole basis. There is currently no valid
scientific support for not exempting this compound at this time, and
the commenter has not provided the Agency with an adequate scientific
basis for not exempting methyl acetate.
Comment: One commenter stated that fundamental organic
photochemistry and oxidation chemistry imply that methyl acetate will
contribute to the photochemical generation of ozone in the troposphere.
Specifically, the photolysis of methyl acetate caused by the light
absorption at wavelengths up to about 230 nanometers (nm) would result
in the production of radicals and should be an efficient photochemical
process. The commenter further states that methyl acetate may absorb
energy and transfer this energy to other molecules to form radicals.
Response: The commenter's claim that methyl acetate participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions by virtue of light absorption at
wavelengths up to about 230 nm and photolysis into free radicals is
contrary to current understanding of photolytic processes occurring in
the atmosphere. Specifically, the photolytic activity
[[Page 17332]]
attributed by the commenter to methyl acetate can occur outside but not
inside the troposphere. It is a well known fact that, inside the
troposphere, photolysis of chemical compounds is restricted to the
wavelength region above 290 nm. Furthermore, the study of methyl
acetate by Dr. William P.L. Carter of the University of California at
Riverside, which was submitted with the petition, did not result in
evidence of any effects due to photolysis. Finally, Dr. Carter's
results and conclusion were supported by smog chamber data obtained by
a competent experimentalist, and were agreed with by a reactivity
expert peer reviewer. Such experimental and peer review support of a
reactivity measurement are accepted by the reactivity scientific
community as being reliable, and, therefore, justify EPA's decision to
accept the measurement result.
Comment: A commenter stated that ethane is unreactive in radical
reactions, that ethane is not usually used in chemical feedstocks, and
that methyl acetate is easily destroyed using catalytic oxidation,
while ethane is not.
Response: The evidence for methyl acetate's low reactivity reported
in Dr. Carter's study indicates that the items in this comment are not
significant when comparing the photochemical reactivity of methyl
acetate to that of ethane.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the exclusion of
methyl acetate as a VOC will have a deleterious effect on netting,
offsetting and trading of existing emissions reduction ``credits'' at
their facilities that have already made substantial reductions in
methyl acetate emissions over the past few years. At the time they made
the reductions, they did so with the understanding that they could be
applied to future expansions at their facilities or could be used for
trading and/or offsetting. They are concerned that EPA's proposal might
be interpreted as obviating these emissions credits.
Response: This is an important concern, but it should not determine
whether a compound, such as methyl acetate, is recognized as being
negligibly reactive. This decision should rest only on the scientific
evidence of the photochemical reactivity of the compound. How to treat
banked credits of a compound that has subsequently been determined to
be negligibly reactive and not to be counted toward VOC reductions in
the future is an issue that transcends this methyl acetate action
alone. The EPA's current policy is to allow States to decide how they
will handle situations within their jurisdictions in a case-by-case
manner.
III. Final Action
Today's action is based on EPA's review of the material in Docket
No. A-97-32. The EPA hereby amends its definition of VOC at 40 CFR
51.100(s) to exclude methyl acetate as a VOC for ozone SIP and ozone
control for purposes of attaining the ozone national ambient air
quality standard. The revised definition also applies for purposes of
any Federal implementation plan for ozone nonattainment areas (e.g., 40
CFR 52.741(a)(3)). States are not obligated to exclude from control as
a VOC those compounds that EPA has found to be negligibly reactive.
However, States should not include these compounds in their VOC
emissions inventories for determining reasonable further progress under
the Act (e.g., section 182(b)(1)) and should not take credit for
controlling these compounds in their ozone control strategy. EPA,
however, urges States to continue to inventory the emissions of methyl
acetate for use in photochemical modeling to assure that such emissions
are not having a significant effect on ambient ozone levels.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file for all information
submitted or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of this
rulemaking. The principle purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow
interested parties to identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process; and, (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review
materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A)).
B. Executive Order 12866
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 was not
submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.
C. Unfunded Mandates Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 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 promulgation of 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 objective of the rule, unless EPA
publishes with the final rule an explanation of 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 plan which informs, educates and advises small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Finally,
section 204 provides that for any proposed or final rule that imposes a
mandate on a State, local or tribal government of $100 million or more
annually, the Agency must provide an opportunity for such governmental
entities to provide input in development of the rule.
Since today's rulemaking is deregulatory in nature and does not
impose any mandate on governmental entities or the private sector, EPA
has determined that sections 202, 203, 204 and 205 of the UMRA do not
apply to this action.
[[Page 17333]]
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires the
identification of potentially adverse economic impacts of Federal
regulations upon small business entities. The Act specifically requires
the completion of an RFA analysis in those instances where the
regulation would impose a substantial economic impact on a significant
number of small entities. The RFA analysis is for the purpose of
determining the economic impact imposed by the terms of the regulation
being adopted. Because this rule is deregulatory in nature, no economic
impacts are imposed by its terms. Therefore, because this rulemaking
imposes no adverse economic impacts within the meaning of the RFA, an
analysis has not been conducted. Pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because no additional
costs will be incurred.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not change any information collection requirements
subject to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 1, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7641q.
2. Section 51.100 is amended by republishing (s) introductory text
and revising paragraph (s)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.100 Definitions.
* * * * *
(s) Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means any compound of carbon,
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions.
(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); 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); 2-
(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
((CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5
); methyl acetate 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. 98-9247 Filed 4-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
