![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds--Exclusion of Methyl Acetate
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 25, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 164)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44926-44928]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25au97-40]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL-5880-7]
RIN 2060-AH27
Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds--Exclusion of Methyl Acetate
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 (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
proposed revision would add 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.
Methyl acetate appears to be promising as a solvent for wood furniture
coatings.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by September 24,
1997. Requests for a hearing must be submitted by September 24, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in duplicate (if possible) to:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention:
Docket No. A-97-32, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW, 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. William Johnson, Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division (MD-15), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919)
541-5245. 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-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.
Interested persons may call Mr. Johnson to see if a hearing will be
held and the date and location of any hearing.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated 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 already 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 (62
FR 12583, 61 FR 52848, and 61 FR 4588).
One common way to evaluate reactivity is to look at the reaction
rate constant (kOH ) value which is a measure of the rate
with which the compound reacts with hydroxyl (OH) radical. This
reaction is usually the first step in a series through which the
compound breaks down and participates in increased ozone formation. If
the OH reaction step is slow, the compound usually will not react
rapidly to form ozone. A kOH value higher than that of
ethane indicates that the compound reacts rapidly with OH. The high
kOH value generally indicates a high ozone formation rate,
but this may or may not be true depending on how the VOC behaves
subsequent to the OH attack.
The best available kOH value available for methyl
acetate is 3.4 x 10-13 cm3
molecule-1 sec-1 which is larger than the
kOH value for ethane (i.e., 2.4 x 10-13
cm3 molecule-1 sec-1). This seems to
indicate that methyl acetate is more reactive than ethane, but
additional studies have shown that this is not actually the case. These
studies, which were carried out by Dr. William P. L. Carter of the
University of California at Riverside, indicate that the reactivity of
methyl acetate is comparable to that of ethane.
Based on literature information, Dr. Carter conceived two
alternative mechanisms for the atmospheric photooxidation of methyl
acetate--one leading to a higher ozone yield and one to a lower yield--
and tested them against his smog chamber data. The mechanism that
showed the best agreement with his data was the one leading to low
ozone yield. Using that mechanism in a mechanistic model, Dr. Carter
computed the reactivity (i.e., maximum incremental reactivity) of
methyl acetate relative to that of ethane for 39 different sets of
urban conditions. Results showed methyl acetate reactivity to be
significantly lower (on an ozone-formed, per gram, VOC basis) than that
of ethane for all sets of conditions. The average value is only 40
percent of that of ethane. Based on these results, Dr. Carter concluded
that methyl acetate is less reactive than ethane.
Some uncertainties are due to the assumptions imbedded in the
mechanism used by Dr. Carter to compute reactivities. Dr. Carter made
one assumption concerning the nature of the main intermediate product
from the photooxidation of methyl acetate, and another one concerning
the atmospheric chemistry of that product. While the assumptions are
consistent with existing knowledge, and are supported also by the good
agreement between mechanism and smog chamber data, they were,
nevertheless, accepted without direct experimental verification (e.g.,
the analytical system used was not sufficient for identifying the
``assumed'' intermediate product), and are, therefore, subject to some
uncertainty.
[[Page 44927]]
Even so, the data presented are sufficiently valid to strongly support
acceptance of the petition.
As mentioned above, the data presented in Dr. Carter's study are
reported on a weight basis, i.e., grams of ozone-formed, per gram, of
VOC reacted. In one case in the past (60 FR 31633) where maximum
incremental reactivity data were presented, EPA has examined a
reactivity petition solely on a weight basis. However, for the methyl
acetate petition, EPA has also looked at the data on a mole basis,
i.e., amount of ozone-formed, per mole, of VOC reacted. Use of a per
mole basis is consistent with previous reactivity determinations based
on kOH values expressed in units of cm3
molecule-1 sec-1. This is also consistent with
the experimental work, done on a mole basis, which was used to
originally list ethane as negligibly reactive. The choice of weight
basis versus mole basis is significant. Given the relative low
molecular weight of ethane, use of the per gram basis tends to result
in more VOC (higher molecular weight ones) falling into the
``negligibly reactive'' class relative to the per mole basis.
On a mole basis, the average reactivity value of methyl acetate for
the 39 cities is lower than that for ethane. In 28 out of the 39 cases,
methyl acetate's reactivity is less than that of ethane. Based on these
results, EPA concludes that the existing scientific evidence does not
support a methyl acetate reactivity higher than that of ethane.
II. Proposed Action
Today's proposed action is based on EPA's review of the material in
Docket No. A-97-32. The EPA hereby proposes to amend 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 NAAQS. The
revised definition will also apply for purposes of any FIP for ozone
nonattainment areas (40 CFR 52.741(a)(3)). States are not obligated to
exclude from control as a VOC those compounds that EPA has found to be
negligibly reactive. However, if this action is made final, States
should not include these compounds in their VOC emissions inventories
for determining reasonable further progress under the Act (e.g.,
section 182(b)(1)) and may not take credit for controlling these
compounds in their ozone control strategy.
III. 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
proposed 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 proposed 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.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires the
identification of potentially adverse 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 impact on a significant number of small
entities. Because this proposed rulemaking imposes no adverse economic
impacts, an analysis has not been conducted. Pursuant to the provision
of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that the proposed 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 proposed rule does not change any information collection
requirements subject to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
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.
[[Page 44928]]
Dated: August 18, 1997.
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 proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.
1. The authority citation for part 51 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 51.100 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(5) introductory text and 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
(C4 F9 OCH3 ); 2-(difluoromethoxymethyl)-
1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
((CF3 )2 CFCF2 OCH3 ); 1-
ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane
(C4 F9 OC2 H5 ); 2-
(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
((CF3 )2 CFCF2 OC2 H5
); 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. 97-22509 Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P