Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; clarification.
EPA is clarifying its approval of revisions to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2006. EPA's action modified South Carolina's federally approved Regulation 61-62.1 “Definitions and General Requirements,” by revising the definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). This action merely clarifies the list of compounds which are excluded from the definition of VOC.
This action is effective June 4, 2007.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-SC-0005. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9042. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail at email@example.com.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
I. What Is the Background for This Action?
Through a direct final rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2006, (71 FR 70880), EPA approved revisions to the South Carolina SIP. These revisions were submitted on October 24, 2005, by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC). The purpose of EPA's action was to revise the definition of VOC. Specifically, that SIP revision updated the nomenclature for compounds excluded from the definition of VOC in SC Regulation 61-62.1, to be consistent with the Federal rule published on November 29, 2004, (69 FR 69298). It also added four compounds to the list of those excluded from the definition of VOC, on the basis that they make a negligible contribution to ozone formation, also consistent with the Federal rule. Additionally, the revision added the compound t-butyl acetate (TBAC or TBAc) to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC for purposes of emissions limitations or VOC content requirements. EPA is clarifying the action taken on December 7, 2006, due to feedback that the rulemaking was not clear in its intent.
II. EPA's Action
The purpose of this action is only to clarify a previous action and no substantial changes are being made. Below is the list of the compounds presented in the December 7, 2006, rulemaking, which updates the nomenclature for the following compounds excluded from the definition of VOC in the South Carolina SIP:
- (CF3)2 CFCF2 OC2 H5 to (2-(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-(1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane)
- CFC-113 (1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane)
- CFC-114 (1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane)
- HCFC-123 (1,1,1-trifluoro-2,2-dichloroethane)
- HCFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane)
- HCFC-141b (1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane)
- HCFC-142b (1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane)
- HFE-7100 (1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxybutane) or (C4 F9 OCH3) Start Printed Page 30705
- HFE-7200 (1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane) or (C4 F9 OC2 H5)
- Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
- Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene); and perfluorocarbon compounds that fall into these classes:
(i) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes;
(ii) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes;
(iii) cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations;
(iv) sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.
Additionally, the 2006 action added the following five compounds to the list of those excluded from the definition of VOC:
- HFE-7000 (1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane) or (n-C3 F7 OCH3)
- 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)
- The following compound(s) are defined as VOC only for purposes of all recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements that apply to VOC and shall be uniquely identified in emission reports; they are not, however, defined as VOC for purposes of VOC emissions limitations or VOC content requirements: T-butyl acetate (TBAC or TBAc).
EPA has determined that today's action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are unnecessary because today's action to provide clarification of those compounds exempted from the definition of VOC, has no substantive impact on EPA's December 7, 2006, approval. The clarification for the list of compounds exempted from the definition of VOC, in EPA's direct final rule published on December 7, 2006, makes no substantive difference to EPA's analysis as set out in that rule. In addition, EPA can identify no particular reason why the public would be interested in being notified of this clarification or in having the opportunity to comment on the clarification prior to this action being finalized, since this clarification action does not change EPA's analysis for the update to the nomenclature for those compounds excluded from the definition of VOC, and the addition of five compounds to the list of those excluded from the definition of VOC.
EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this clarification to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3), is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule simply clarifies EPA's December 7, 2006, rulemaking. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3), for this clarification to become effective on the date of publication of this action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely clarifies the nomenclature and the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC in the South Carolina SIP as approved in EPA's December 7, 2006, rulemaking, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule clarifies the nomenclature and the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC in the South Carolina SIP as approved in EPA's December 7, 2006, rulemaking, notice and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely clarifies the nomenclature and the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC in the South Carolina SIP as approved in EPA's December 7, 2006, rulemaking, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, U.S.C. section 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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other Start Printed Page 30706required 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).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 3, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Carbon monoxide
- Intergovernmental relations
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Particulate matter
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Sulfur oxides
- Volatile organic compounds
Dated: May 22, 2007.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7-10696 Filed 6-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P