Draft
Copy
of
Final
Federal
Register
Notice
for
Revision
to
Definition
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
­
Exclusion
of
t­
Butyl
Acetate
which
was
sent
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
for
review
on
November
12,
2004.

6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
51
[
OAR­
2003­
0084;
FRL­
]

[
RIN
2060­
AI45]

Revision
to
Definition
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
­
Exclusion
of
t­
Butyl
Acetate
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Final
Rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
revises
EPA's
definition
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
for
purposes
of
Federal
regulations
related
to
attaining
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
for
ozone
under
title
I
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
This
revision
modifies
the
definition
of
VOC
to
say
that
t­
butyl
acetate
(
also
known
as
tertiary
butyl
acetate
or
informally
as
TBAC
or
TBAc)
will
not
be
VOC
for
purposes
of
VOC
emissions
limitations
or
VOC
content
requirements,
but
will
continue
to
be
VOC
for
purposes
of
all
recordkeeping,
emissions
reporting,
and
inventory
requirements
which
apply
to
VOC.
This
revision
is
made
on
2
the
basis
that
this
compound
has
negligible
contribution
to
tropospheric
ozone
formation.
As
a
result,
if
you
are
subject
to
certain
Federal
regulations
limiting
emissions
of
VOCs,
your
emissions
of
TBAC
may
not
be
regulated
for
some
purposes.

DATES:
This
final
rule
is
effective
on
[
insert
date
30
days
after
publication].

ADDRESSES:
The
EPA
has
established
a
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0084
(
legacy
docket
number
A­
99­
02).
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
EDOCKET
index
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Although
listed
in
the
index,

some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,

Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
EDOCKET
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
Docket,
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,

NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
3
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
William
Johnson,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Air
Quality
Strategies
and
Standards
Division
(
C539­
02),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711;
(
919)
541­
5245;

email:
johnson.
williaml@
epa.
gov.
4
1
The
petition
was
submitted
on
January
17,
1997,
by
ARCO
Chemical
Company.
Lyondell
is
the
successor
to
ARCO
for
this
petition,
and
EPA
will
refer
to
the
petitioner
as
Lyondell
throughout
this
final
rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
How
Does
This
Rule
Fit
Into
Existing
Regulations?

The
EPA
is
revising
the
definition
of
VOC
to
say
that
TBAC
will
not
be
a
VOC
for
purposes
of
VOC
emissions
limitations
or
VOC
content
requirements,
but
will
continue
to
be
a
VOC
for
purposes
of
all
recordkeeping,
emissions
reporting,
and
inventory
requirements
which
apply
to
VOC.

If
you
use
or
produce
TBAC
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
for
purposes
related
to
attaining
the
ozone
NAAQS,
then
you
will
not
count
TBAC
as
a
VOC
in
determining
whether
you
meet
these
regulatory
obligations.
However,
TBAC
emissions
will
still
be
subject
to
reporting
requirements
that
exist
for
other
VOC
emissions.
This
action
may
also
affect
whether
TBAC
is
considered
a
VOC
for
State
regulatory
purposes,
depending
on
whether
the
State
relies
on
EPA's
definition
of
VOC.
This
decision
responds
to
a
petition
submitted
by
the
Lyondell
Chemical
Company1
and
is
based
on
information
included
in
5
the
petition
and
other
information
submitted
to
the
docket
for
this
rule
(
OAR­
2003­
0084).
The
EPA
proposed
the
VOC
exemption
of
TBAC
on
September
30,
1999
(
64
FR
52731),
and
provided
a
60­
day
comment
period.

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)
that
form
ozone
through
atmospheric
photochemical
reactions.
Compounds
of
carbon
(
also
known
as
organic
compounds)
have
different
levels
of
reactivity
­­
that
is,
they
do
not
react
at
the
same
speed
or
do
not
contribute
to
ozone
formation
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.
6
B.
What
Evidence
Does
the
Petitioner
Present
to
Support
Classifying
TBAC
as
Negligibly
Reactive?

On
January
17,
1997,
Lyondell
submitted
a
petition
to
EPA
which
requested
that
EPA
add
TBAC
to
the
list
of
compounds
that
are
designated
negligibly
reactive
in
the
definition
of
VOC
at
40
CFR
51.100(
s).
The
petitioner
subsequently
submitted
supplemental
materials
to
EPA
in
support
of
its
petition.
These
materials
are
contained
in
docket
OAR­
2003­
0084.
The
petitioner
based
the
request
on
a
comparison
of
the
reactivity
of
TBAC
to
that
of
ethane,
the
latter
having
already
been
listed,
since
1977,
as
negligibly
reactive.
In
the
past,
EPA
has
determined
that
ethane
and
compounds
with
lower
reactivity
than
ethane
are
negligibly
reactive
and
therefore
exempted
them
from
the
definition
of
VOC.
Reactivity
data
presented
by
Lyondell
in
support
of
the
petition
included
both
kOH
values
and
incremental
reactivity
values.
The
kOH
values
are
values
of
the
rate
constant
for
the
VOC
+
OH
(
hydroxyl
radical)
reaction.
The
incremental
reactivity
values,
which
support
the
petition
and
reflect
TBAC's
potential
for
producing
ozone
in
the
atmosphere,
are
based
on
atmospheric
photochemical
modeling.

Lyondell's
primary
case
for
TBAC
being
less
reactive
than
ethane
is
based
on
the
use
of
incremental
reactivity
data
set
forth
in
a
report
titled
"
Investigation
of
the
7
Atmospheric
Ozone
Formation
Potential
of
T­
Butyl
Acetate"
by
W.
P.
L.
Carter,
et.
al.
In
that
study,
Carter
compared
the
incremental
ozone
formed
per­
gram
of
TBAC
under
urban
atmosphere
conditions
to
that
formed,
under
the
same
conditions,
per­
gram
of
ethane.
The
study
repeated
these
comparisons
for
39
condition
scenarios,
that
is,
sets
of
ambient
conditions
intended
to
represent
39
urban
areas
across
the
United
States.
Carter
concluded
that,
on
average,
TBAC
formed
0.4
times
as
much
ozone
as
an
equal
mass
of
ethane
under
the
conditions
assumed
in
the
study.

Comparing
the
reactivity
of
TBAC
to
ethane
on
a
per
mole
basis,
as
opposed
to
a
per
gram
basis,
calculations
based
on
Carter's
results
show
that
a
mole
of
TBAC
forms
1.5
times
the
ozone
formed
by
a
mole
of
ethane
under
the
conditions
assumed
in
the
study.
The
difference
in
reactivity
results
between
the
"
per
gram"
and
"
per
mole"

comparisons
is
due
to
the
fact
that
a
molecule
of
TBAC
is
almost
four
times
heavier
than
a
molecule
of
ethane.

C.
How
Does
EPA
Determine
Whether
an
Organic
Compound
is
Negligibly
Reactive?

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
8
that
time.
In
that
statement,
EPA
identified
the
following
four
compounds
as
being
of
negligible
photochemical
reactivity
and
said
these
should
be
exempt
from
regulation
under
State
Implementation
Plans:
methane;
ethane;
1,1,1­

trichloroethane
(
methyl
chloroform);
1,1,2­
trichloro­
1,2,2­

trifluoroethane
(
CFC­
113).
That
policy
statement
provides
that
as
new
information
becomes
available,
EPA
may
periodically
revise
the
list
of
negligibly
reactive
compounds
to
add
compounds
to
or
delete
them
from
the
list.

The
EPA's
decision
to
exempt
certain
compounds
in
its
1977
policy
was
heavily
influenced
by
experimental
smog
chamber
work
done
earlier
in
the
1970'
s.
In
this
experimental
work,
various
compounds
were
injected
into
a
smog
chamber
at
a
molar
concentration
that
is
typical
of
the
total
molar
concentration
of
VOCs
in
Los
Angeles
ambient
air
(
4
ppmv).
As
the
compound
was
allowed
to
react
with
NOX
at
concentrations
of
0.2
ppm,
the
maximum
ozone
formed
in
the
chamber
was
measured.
If
the
compound
in
the
smog
chamber
did
not
result
in
ozone
formation
of
0.08
ppm
(
0.08
ppm
was
the
NAAQS
for
oxidants
at
that
time),
it
was
assumed
that
emissions
of
the
compound
would
not
cause
the
oxidant
standard
to
be
exceeded.
The
compound
could
then
be
considered
to
be
negligibly
reactive.
Ethane
was
the
most
reactive
compound
tested
that
did
not
cause
the
0.08
ozone
level
in
the
smog
chamber
to
be
met
or
exceeded.
Based
on
9
those
findings
and
judgments,
EPA
designated
ethane
as
negligibly
reactive,
and
ethane
became
the
benchmark
VOC
species
separating
reactive
from
negligibly
reactive
compounds.

Since
1977,
the
primary
method
for
comparing
the
reactivity
of
a
specific
compound
to
that
of
ethane
has
been
to
compare
the
kOH
values
for
ethane
and
the
specific
compound
of
interest.
The
kOH
value
represents
the
molar
rate
constant
for
reactions
between
the
subject
compound
(
e.
g.,
ethane)
and
the
hydroxyl
radical
(
i.
e.,

OH).
This
reaction
is
very
important
since
it
is
the
primary
pathway
by
which
most
organic
compounds
initially
participate
in
atmospheric
photochemical
reaction
processes.
The
EPA
has
exempted
forty
five
compounds
or
classes
of
compounds
based
on
a
comparison
of
kOH
values
since
1977.

In
1994,
in
response
to
a
petition
to
exempt
volatile
methyl
siloxanes,
EPA,
for
the
first
time,
considered
a
comparison
to
ethane
based
on
Incremental
Reactivity
(
IR)

metrics
(
59
FR
50693,
October
5,
1994).
The
use
of
IR
metrics
allowed
EPA
to
take
into
consideration
the
ozone
forming
potential
of
other
reactions
of
the
compound
in
addition
to
the
initial
reaction
with
the
hydroxyl
radical.

Volatile
methyl
siloxanes
proved
to
be
less
reactive
than
ethane
both
on
a
per
mole
and
per
gram
basis.
In
1995,
EPA
considered
another
compound,
acetone,
using
IR
metrics.
10
Although
acetone
was
more
reactive
than
ethane
on
a
molar
basis,
after
considering
the
IR
metrics,
EPA
exempted
acetone
based
on
the
fact
that
acetone
was
less
reactive
on
the
basis
of
grams
of
ozone
formed
per
grams
of
VOC
emitted
(
60
FR
31635,
June
16,
1995).
Prior
to
1994,
all
exemptions
had
been
based
on
kOH
values
compared
on
the
basis
of
a
mole
of
ozone
formed
per
mole
of
VOC
emitted.
Since
1995,
EPA
has
exempted
one
additional
compound,
methyl
acetate,
based
on
comparisons
of
IR
metrics.
The
reactivity
of
methyl
acetate
was
found
to
be
comparable
to
or
less
than
that
for
ethane
both
under
a
per
gram
basis
and
under
a
per
mole
basis.

In
the
proposal
for
this
rule
(
64
FR
52731),
EPA
announced
two
things:
(
1)
our
intent
to
grant
Lyondell's
petition
for
exemption
of
TBAC
based
on
a
comparison
of
IR
metrics
for
TBAC
as
compared
to
ethane
in
units
of
grams
of
ozone
formed
per
gram
of
VOC
emitted,
and
(
2)
our
intent
to
base
decisions
on
future
petitions
for
VOC
exemptions
only
on
an
equi­
molar
comparison
of
kOH
and
IR
values
for
the
compound
in
question
to
the
kOH
and
IR
values
for
ethane.

In
the
proposal,
EPA
indicated
that
it
might
grant
the
TBAC
exemption
on
the
theory
that
the
petitioner
had
detrimentally
relied
on
earlier
EPA
statements
and
actions
concerning
the
use
of
a
gram­
based
comparison
rather
than
a
molar
comparison
of
the
reactivity
of
compounds.
11
D.
What
Comments
did
EPA
Receive
on
the
Proposal?

In
the
proposal
for
the
TBAC
exemption,
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).
There
were
no
requests
for
a
public
hearing.

In
the
proposal
action,
EPA
provided
for
a
public
comment
period.
The
EPA
received
30
comment
letters.
The
comments
received
were
divided
into
two
general
categories:

comments
concerned
with
EPA
VOC
exemption
policy
in
general
and
comments
focused
specifically
on
the
exemption
of
TBAC.

Several
commented
on
EPA
VOC
exemption
policy,
in
general,

as
well
as
supporting
the
TBAC
exemption.
The
comments
received
are
too
numerous
to
list
each
one
in
this
final
rule.
All
of
the
comment
letters
have
been
placed
in
the
docket
for
this
action.
A
summary
of
the
comments
received
and
EPA
responses
are
given
in
a
technical
support
document,

titled
"
Responses
to
Significant
Comments
on
the
Proposed
Revision
to
the
Definition
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
­

Exclusion
of
t­
Butyl
Acetate
(
64
FR
52731,
September
30,

1999),"
which
is
in
the
docket.
In
today's
final
rule,
we
have
summarized
what
EPA
views
as
the
most
significant
comments
and
our
responses.

II.
Comments
Dealing
With
EPA's
VOC
Exemption
Policy
Comment
12
A
number
of
commenters
asserted
that
the
primary
purpose
of
a
VOC
exemption
policy
should
be
to
encourage
replacement
of
current
emissions
of
highly
reactive
compounds
with
emissions
of
lower
reactive
compounds.
This
would
ostensibly
result
in
lower
ozone
formation
and
lower
adverse
environmental
impact.
The
commenters
stated
that
one
way
of
doing
this
would
be
to
exempt
more
low
reactivity
compounds.
The
use
of
a
"
reactivity
per
gram"
basis
for
comparing
reactivities
for
exemption
purposes
would
be
less
strict
than
a
"
per
mole"
basis,
and
would
permit
more
exemptions,
and
thus
more
solvent
substitution.

Response
The
intent
of
EPA's
current
VOC
exemption
policy
is
to
avoid
placing
an
undue
regulatory
burden
on
the
use
of
compounds
that
do
not
significantly
contribute
to
the
formation
of
harmful
concentrations
of
ozone.
Once
a
compound
is
exempted,
emissions
of
the
compound
may
increase
significantly
due
to
substitution
and
new
uses
of
the
compound.
Because
these
potential
increases
are
exempt
from
control,
it
is
important
that
the
compounds
be
negligibly
reactive
and
not
simply
marginally
less
reactive
than
compounds
that
they
may
replace.
If
by
exempting
negligibly
reactive
compounds
EPA
encourages
the
substitution
of
negligibly
reactive
compounds
for
highly
reactive
compounds,
13
this
is
an
added
benefit.

EPA
is
currently
evaluating
a
variety
of
scientific,

legal,
and
practical
issues
associated
with
the
design
and
implementation
of
a
policy
to
encourage
further
substitution,
such
as
the
use
of
VOC
reactivity
scales.
To
address
these
issues,
EPA
is
working
with
the
State
of
California
and
the
Reactivity
Research
Working
Group,
a
government/
industry/
academic
working
group
established
under
NARSTO
(
formerly
the
North
American
Research
Strategy
for
Tropospheric
Ozone)
to
identify
research
priorities
related
to
VOC
reactivity.
The
results
of
these
efforts
will
be
considered
by
EPA
as
part
of
a
multi­
year
review
of
our
current
VOC
policy
and
addressed
through
future
rulemakings.

Comment
Many
commenters
strongly
opposed
EPA's
announcement
that
reactivity
petitions
will
be
evaluated
on
a
"
reactivity
per
mole"
basis
for
petitions
submitted
after
the
TBAC
proposal
notice
date.
These
commenters
supported
the
"
per
gram"
basis
and
questioned
the
use
of
the
smog
chamber
experiments
that
were
reported
in
1977
as
the
basis
for
the
molar
comparison
with
ethane.

Response
The
EPA
believes
that
a
"
reactivity
per
mole"
14
comparison
is
more
consistent
with
the
smog
chamber
experiments
underlying
the
1977
policy,
is
more
consistent
with
the
historical
use
of
kOH
values
as
a
basis
of
comparison,
and
is
arguably
more
environmentally
protective
than
a
"
reactivity
per
mass"
comparison.
However,
EPA
believes
that
the
issues
raised
by
commenters
warrant
a
more
extensive
review
of
the
overall
exemption
policy
and
its
scientific
bases.
Consequently,
EPA
is
not
revising
its
current
VOC
exemption
policy
with
this
final
rule.
As
noted
in
the
proposal,
EPA
has
commenced
a
multi­
year
review
of
its
policy,
which
will
hopefully
be
informed
by
the
research
activities
being
identified
by
the
RRWG
mentioned
above.

The
EPA
believes
that
it
would
be
desirable
for
this
review
to
be
completed
before
reaching
a
decision
on
how
to
address
future
petitions.
Parties
submitting
petitions
for
VOC
exemptions
should
expect
their
petitions
to
be
reviewed
under
a
new
policy.

III.
Comments
Specific
to
the
TBAC
Exemption
Proposal
Comment
Commenters
opposed
to
the
TBAC
exemption
said
that
because
EPA
intended
to
change
its
exemption
policy
to
a
"
per
mole"
comparison,
EPA
should
apply
that
test
to
this
petition
and
not
grandfather
it
under
the
"
per
gram"
policy.

The
petitioner
argued
that
it
relied
on
past
EPA
statements
15
regarding
the
acceptability
to
EPA
of
using
a
per
gram
basis
in
the
acetone
exemption
proposal
(
59
FR
49877,
September
30,
1994)
and
final
rule
(
60
FR
31633,
June
16,
1995)
and
in
the
1995
Report
to
Congress
"
Study
of
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emissions
from
Consumer
and
Commercial
Products."

The
petitioner
argued
that
in
reliance
on
these
statements
it
had
expended
significant
resources
in
research
and
planning
to
develop
its
petition
for
the
exemption
of
TBAC
on
the
per
gram
basis.

Response
As
discussed
above,
in
today's
action,
EPA
is
not
finalizing
a
change
to
the
existing
VOC
exemption
policy.

Therefore,
our
decision
to
grant
the
TBAC
petition
does
not
involve
grandfathering
this
pre­
existing
petition
from
the
application
of
a
new
policy.
In
any
event,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
petitioner's
investment
of
significant
resources
in
research
and
planning
would
be,
in
itself,
a
sufficient
justification
for
such
grandfathering.
First,
an
important
consideration
for
grandfathering
is
the
statutory
interest
in
applying
the
new
policy.
If
we
were
to
adopt
a
policy
today
permitting
only
a
per
mole
comparison,

retaining
ethane
as
the
benchmark,
we
might
conclude
that
granting
the
TBAC
petition
would
not
further
the
statutory
interest
in
reducing
ozone,
because
on
a
per­
mole
basis
TBAC
16
is
more
reactive
than
ethane.
A
second
consideration
for
grandfathering
is
whether
the
new
policy
represents
an
abrupt
departure
from
well­
established
practice.
We
would
not
necessarily
characterize
use
of
a
per­
mole
basis
in
evaluating
VOC
exemption
petitions
as
such
a
departure.

Most
VOC
exemptions
to
date
have
been
granted
using
kOH
values,
which
is
consistent
with
using
a
per­
mole
basis.

The
remaining
considerations
for
grandfathering
relate
to
the
petitioner's
reliance
on
the
old
policy
and
the
burden
to
the
petitioner
imposed
by
the
new
policy.

Although
the
petitioner
stated
that
it
expended
significant
resources
in
reliance
on
the
per­
gram
policy,
the
petitioner
competes
in
a
regulated
marketplace
in
which
regulations
can
be
expected
to
evolve
with
both
scientific
understanding
and
market
conditions.
In
addition,
because
the
petitioner
claimed
that
it
undertook
only
preliminary
activities,
such
as
research
and
planning,
it
would
be
difficult
to
identify
concrete
effects
of
the
petitioner's
alleged
reliance.

Furthermore,
changes
in
EPA's
VOC
exemption
policy
would
likely
affect
both
the
petitioner
and
its
competitors.
As
commenters
pointed
out,
EPA
previously
exempted
acetone
despite
the
argument
that
another
company
had
developed
a
low
VOC
industrial
cleaner
as
an
alternative
to
acetone
in
reliance
on
acetone's
status
as
a
VOC.
In
summary,
if
we
were
to
apply
a
grandfathering
analysis
to
a
VOC
exemption
17
petition
such
as
the
TBAC
petition,
we
would
consider
not
only
investment
of
resources
in
research
and
planning,
but
also
the
other
factors
discussed
here.

Comment
Some
commenters
questioned
the
exemption
of
TBAC
before
further
study
of
the
compound's
toxicity.
According
to
the
commenters:
(
i)
the
health
effects
data
available
for
TBAC
are
limited;
(
ii)
no
chronic,
developmental,
or
reproductive
toxicity
data
are
available
for
TBAC;
and
(
iii)
no
genetic
toxicity
or
carcinogenicity
data
are
available
for
TBAC.

Due
to
the
lack
of
information
on
TBAC,
the
commenters
contended
that
it
is
not
possible
to
assess
the
potential
for
adverse
effects
from
prolonged
exposure.
However,
the
commenters
point
to
evidence
that
TBAC
metabolizes
to
tbutyl
alcohol,
for
which
some
animal
testing
data
suggests
that
it
may
be
carcinogenic.
This
information
was
emphasized
in
a
letter
to
EPA
from
the
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
signed
by
Air
Resources
Board,
Office
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment,
and
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board).
Other
commenters
urged
EPA
to
deny
the
exclusion
of
TBAC
from
the
VOC
definition
because
of
concerns
about
toxicity.

Since
the
close
of
the
comment
period,
the
California
Air
Resources
Board,
in
conjuction
with
California's
Office
18
of
Environmental
Health
Hazard
Assessment,
has
completed
a
draft
assessment
of
a
VOC
exemption
for
TBAC.
The
assessment
quantifies
(
1)
the
potential
benefits
associated
with
decreased
ozone
formation
as
a
result
of
TBAC
substituting
for
more
reactive
compounds,
and
(
2)
the
potential
cancer
risks
associated
with
increased
exposure
to
TBAC.
A
copy
of
this
draft
assessment
is
included
in
the
docket.

As
part
of
their
original
submission,
Lyondell
had
provided
EPA
with
information
on
the
acute
toxicity
of
TBAC.

As
input
into
California's
assessment,
Lyondell
submitted
to
EPA
and
California
a
variety
of
additional
information
about
chronic
toxicity.
Copies
of
this
information,
as
well
as
a
copy
of
Lyondell's
critique
of
California's
assessment,
are
included
in
the
docket.

Response
The
EPA
has
carefully
reviewed
the
limited
data
that
is
available
on
the
chronic
toxicity
of
TBAC,
including
California's
risk
assessment,
and
has
reviewed
the
data
available
about
the
potential
health
benefits
due
to
reduced
ozone
exposure
from
the
use
of
TBAC
as
a
substitute
for
more
reactive
substances.
The
EPA
has
concluded
that
(
1)
there
is
insufficient
evidence
of
a
significant
toxic
risk
to
justify
not
granting
the
exemption
petition,
and
(
2)
19
granting
the
exemption
will
provide
a
net
improvement
in
public
health
and
environmental
quality.
However,
given
the
potential
for
increased
use
of
TBAC,
EPA
does
believe
that
further
toxicity
testing
is
warranted
to
resolve
the
uncertainty
associated
with
the
limited
evidence
that
is
currently
available.

In
response
to
these
concerns,
Lyondell
has
agreed
to
work
with
EPA
to
perform
the
toxicity
testing
needed
to
resolve
the
current
uncertainty.
As
part
of
this
effort,

Lyondell
will
conduct
a
tiered
series
of
tests
designed
to
confirm
and
elucidate
the
mechanisms
of
potential
toxicity
observed
in
the
limited
data
available.
Lyondell
will
submit
the
testing
results
to
an
independent
scientific
peer
consultation
panel
that
will
make
recommendations
to
EPA
and
Lyondell
as
to
whether
further
testing
is
warranted.
Based
on
the
information
currently
available
and
experience
with
similar
compounds,
EPA
believes
that
the
first
tier
of
testing
is
likely
to
be
sufficient
to
resolve
much
of
the
current
uncertainty.
Until
the
testing
program
is
completed
and
evaluated,
Lyondell
has
agreed
to
limit
their
annual
production
of
TBAC
to
ensure
that
significant
chronic
ambient
exposures
will
not
occur.
If
the
testing
program
indicates
that
TBAC
does
pose
a
potentially
significant
public
health
risk,
EPA
will
take
appropriate
regulatory
action
to
address
the
risk.
20
The
EPA
believes
that
moving
forward
with
the
exemption
and
simultaneously
pursuing
additional
toxicity
testing
is
a
responsible
risk
management
approach
that
allows
society
to
benefit
from
lower
ozone
exposures
while
protecting
against
other
potential
chronic
risks.

Comment
The
petitioner
claimed
that
TBAC
will
be
used
to
substitute
for
the
common
industrial
solvents
toluene
and
xylene
which
are
classified
by
EPA
as
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
HAPs)
and
which
are
much
more
photochemically
reactive
than
TBAC.
The
petitioner
claimed
that
this
will
be
a
great
environmental
benefit
from
the
TBAC
exemption.

Other
commenters
asserted
that
TBAC
will
not
be
substituted
to
any
great
degree
for
toluene
and
xylene
as
the
petitioner
claims.
These
commenters
claimed
that
TBAC
is
more
expensive
than
toluene
and
xylene
and
may
be
added
on
top
of
the
legal
VOC
limit
of
these
chemicals
in
a
product
to
increase
the
solvent
content
of
product
without
increasing
VOC
content.

Response
The
EPA
acknowledges
that
the
properties
of
TBAC
make
it
technically
suitable
to
be
substituted
for
toluene
and
xylene
in
many
products.
The
extent
to
which
TBAC
will
be
used
as
a
substitute
will
depend
on
costs.
Currently,
TBAC
21
is
relatively
expensive
compared
to
toluene
and
xylene.

However,
if
exempted,
demand
for
TBAC
is
expected
to
increase,
increasing
production
and
driving
down
costs.

There
is
a
possibility
that
companies
will
use
relatively
cheap
solvents
like
toluene
and
xylene
up
to
the
legal
limit
and
then
use
TBAC
to
add
solvent
above
the
applicable
VOC
content
limits.
Ultimately,
EPA
expects
that
substitution
of
TBAC
for
more
reactive
and
harmful
solvents
will
outweigh
increases
in
solvent
use,
resulting
in
a
net
improvement
in
environmental
quality.
However,
this
is
not
the
reason
that
EPA
is
granting
this
exemption
from
VOC
emission
limitations.
The
action
is
based
on
photochemical
reactivity
relative
to
ethane.

After
reviewing
these
comments
and
the
other
material
in
the
docket,
EPA
is
acting
in
accordance
with
our
existing
policy
by
modifying
the
definition
of
VOC
to
say
that
TBAC
is
not
a
VOC
for
purposes
of
VOC
emission
limitations
or
content
requirements
because
TBAC
is
less
reactive
than
ethane
on
a
per
gram
basis.

III.
Why
is
EPA
Asking
that
Emissions
of
TBAC
Continue
to
be
Reported?

In
prior
VOC
exemption
decisions,
EPA
has
not
required
continued
recordkeeping
and
reporting
on
the
use
and
emissions
of
the
exempt
compounds.
However,
our
current
22
understanding
of
the
complexities
of
ozone
formation
suggests
that
most
organic
compounds
that
EPA
has
exempted
as
"
negligibly
reactive"
do
have
some
photochemical
reactivity,
albeit
small.
The
EPA
proposed
to
retain
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
TBAC
even
if
TBAC
was
added
to
the
list
of
negligibly
reactive
compounds.

The
EPA
believes
that
it
is
important
to
continue
collecting
data
on
TBAC
and
other
new
exempt
organic
compound
emissions
for
the
following
reasons:

(
a)
The
EPA
wants
to
investigate
the
possibility
that
some
compounds
classified
as
"
negligibly
reactive"
or
which
have
been
excluded
from
the
definition
of
VOC
for
purposes
of
VOC
emissions
limitations
or
VOC
content
requirements
may,
in
fact,
contribute
to
ozone
formation
under
certain
conditions,
especially
if
there
are
large
amounts
of
such
emissions;

(
b)
The
EPA
wants
to
investigate
whether
significant
aggregate
emissions
of
"
negligibly
reactive"
compounds
or
of
compounds
which
have
been
excluded
from
the
definition
of
VOC
for
purposes
of
VOC
emissions
limitations
or
VOC
content
requirements
may
contribute
to
multi­
day
ozone
events
and
to
ozone
transport;

(
c)
The
EPA
believes
that
in
order
to
have
more
accurate
photochemical
modeling,
it
may
be
necessary
to
keep
track
of
exempt
compound
emissions,
especially
if
there
are
large
23
amounts
of
such
emissions;
and
(
d)
The
EPA
is
now
in
the
process
of
assessing
its
VOC
policy
in
general,
and
its
VOC
exemption
policy
in
particular,
and
data
about
the
impacts
of
VOC
exemptions
on
such
things
as
the
volume
of
exempt
compound
use,
the
effects
of
an
exemption
on
ambient
ozone
conditions,
and
the
verification
of
potential
VOC
substitution
are
critical
information
that
can
only
be
obtained
through
continued
recordkeeping
and
reporting.

The
EPA
does
not
believe
that
a
requirement
to
collect
and
report
emissions
data
on
TBAC
is
a
new
recordkeeping
burden
on
industry,
because
users
of
TBAC
are
currently
required
to
collect
and
report
this
information
on
TBAC
as
a
VOC.

Similarly,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
a
requirement
for
continued
reporting
of
TBAC
emissions
is
a
new
burden
on
States,
since
States
are
already
collecting
information
and
reporting
on
these
emissions.

IV.
What
is
Today's
Final
Action?

Today's
final
action
is
based
on
EPA's
review
of
the
material
in
Docket
No.
OAR­
2003­
0084.
The
EPA
hereby
amends
its
definition
of
VOC
at
40
CFR
51.100(
s)
to
say
that
TBAC
is
not
VOC
for
purposes
of
VOC
emissions
limitations
or
VOC
content
requirements,
but
will
continue
to
be
VOC
for
purposes
24
of
all
recordkeeping,
emissions
reporting,
and
inventory
requirements
which
apply
to
VOC.
You
should
not
count
TBAC
as
a
VOC
for
purposes
of
EPA
regulations
related
to
attaining
the
ozone
NAAQS,
including
regulations
limiting
your
use
of
VOCs
or
your
emissions
of
VOCs;
but
you
must
record
and
report
the
use
and
emissions
of
TBAC.
Your
recordkeeping
and
reporting
of
TBAC
must
conform
to
those
requirements
that
would
apply
to
you
for
non­
exempt
VOCs
used
in
the
same
manner
or
in
the
same
application
as
TBAC.
You
should
check
with
your
State
to
determine
whether
you
should
count
TBAC
as
a
VOC
for
State
regulations.
However,
your
State
should
not
include
TBAC
in
its
VOC
emissions
inventories
for
determining
reasonable
further
progress
under
the
CAA
(
e.
g.,
section
182(
b)(
1))
or
take
credit
for
controlling
this
compound
in
its
ozone
control
strategy.
However,
States
must
include
TBAC
in
inventories
used
for
ozone
modeling
to
assure
that
such
emissions
are
not
having
a
significant
effect
on
ambient
ozone
levels.
States
are
encouraged
to
include
other
already
exempt
compounds
in
such
inventories,
and
should
anticipate
that
future
VOC
exemptions
will
not
eliminate
inventory
requirements.

The
EPA
is
not
finalizing
a
decision
on
how
future
petitions
will
be
evaluated.
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.
Given
the
existence
of
this
policy
25
review,
parties
submitting
petitions
for
VOC
exemptions
should
expect
their
petitions
to
be
reviewed
under
a
new
policy.

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
26
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
order.

It
has
been
determined
that
this
rule
is
not
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
under
the
terms
of
Executive
order
12866
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
review.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
action
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
This
action
revises
the
definition
of
"
Volatile
Organic
Compounds"
for
purposes
of
federal
regulations
related
to
attaining
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS),
for
ozone,
and
makes
no
changes
to
recordkeeping
or
reporting
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
27
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

An
agency
may
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
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
in
40
CFR
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
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
final
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
28
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).

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
by
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
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
29
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
rule
that
imposes
a
mandate
on
a
State,
local
or
Tribal
government
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year,
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.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
order
13132,
entitled
"
federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
30
government."

This
final
rule
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.
Today's
final
rule
does
not
impose
any
new
mandates
on
State
or
local
governments,
but
simply
retains
the
existing
requirement
to
include
TBAC
in
inventories
used
for
ozone
modeling.
Thus,
Executive
0rder
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

F.
Executive
Orders
13084
and
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
On
November
6,
2000,
the
President
issued
Executive
order
13175
(
65
FR
67249)
entitled,
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments."
Executive
order
13175
took
effect
on
January
6,
2001,
and
revokes
Executive
order
13084
(
Tribal
Consultation)
as
of
that
date.
The
EPA
developed
this
final
rule,
however,
during
the
period
when
Executive
order
13084
was
in
effect;
thus,
EPA
addressed
Tribal
considerations
under
Executive
order
13084.

Under
Executive
order
13084,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affects
the
communities
of
Indian
Tribal
31
governments,
and
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
those
communities,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
the
Tribal
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
those
governments.
If
EPA
complies
by
consulting,
Executive
order
13084
requires
EPA
to
provide
to
the
OMB,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
a
description
of
the
extent
of
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
Indian
Tribal
governments,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
In
addition,

Executive
order
13084
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
permitting
elected
officials
and
other
representatives
of
Indian
Tribal
governments
"
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
on
matters
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities."

Today's
rule
does
not
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
the
communities
of
Indian
Tribal
governments.
This
rule
is
deregulatory
in
nature
and
does
not
impose
any
direct
compliance
costs.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
section
3(
b)
of
Executive
order
13084
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
32
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.
(
See
62
FR
38856
and
38859,
July
18,
1997).
The
EPA
has
not
identified
any
specific
studies
on
whether
or
to
what
extent
t­
butyl
acetate
directly
affects
children's
health.

The
EPA
has
placed
the
available
data
regarding
the
health
effects
of
t­
butyl
acetate
in
docket
no.
OAR­
2003­
0084.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
order
13211,

"
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
33
distribution,
or
Use,"
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
order
12866.
Information
on
the
methodology
and
data
regarding
the
assessment
of
potential
energy
impacts
is
found
in
chapter
6
of
the
U.
S.
EPA
1002,
Cost,
Emission
Reduction,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impact
Assessment
of
the
Proposed
Rule
Establishing
the
Implementation
Framework
for
the
8­
hour,
0.08
ppm
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard,
prepared
by
the
Innovative
Strategies
and
Economics
Group,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC,

April
24,
2003.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
No.
104­
113.

§
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.
34
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
Controller
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
[
insert
date
30
days
after
publication.]
35
Revision
to
Definition
of
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
­
Exclusion
of
t­
Butyl
Acetate"
page
34
of
35
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:

__________________________

Michael
O.
Leavitt
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,
7411,
7412,
7413,
7414,
7470­
7479,

7501­
7508,
7601,
and
7602.
36
2.
Section
51.100
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
5
as
follows:

§
51.100
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*

3.
The
following
compound(
s)
are
VOC
for
purposes
of
all
recordkeeping,
emissions
reporting,
and
inventory
requirements
which
apply
to
VOC,
but
are
not
VOC
for
purposes
of
VOC
emissions
limitations
or
VOC
content
requirements:
t­
butyl
acetate.

*
*
*
*
*
