44926 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 × 10¥13 cm3

molecule¥1 sec¥1 which is larger than

the kOH value for ethane (i.e., 2.4 ×

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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.
44928 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

§ 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-trichloro1,2,2-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-chloro1,1,1,2-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. 97–22509 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH104–1B; FRL–5877–8]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is proposing to approve a June

10, 1997, request from Ohio, for a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance

plan revision for the following areas:

Toledo area (including Lucas and Wood

counties), the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain

area (including Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake,

Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit

and Portage counties), and the DaytonSpringfield area (including

Montgomery, Clark, Greene, and Miami

counties). The maintenance plan

revisions are requesting to allocate to

the mobile source emissions budget for

transportation conformity a portion of

the existing ‘‘Safety Margins.’’ The

safety margin is the difference between

the attainment inventory level of the

total emissions and the projected levels

of the total emissions in the final year

of the maintenance plan.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposed action must be received by

September 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Hamilton, Environmental

Scientist, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, see the Direct

Final rule which is located in the Rules

section of this Federal Register. Copies

of the requests are available for

inspection at the following address:

(Please contact Scott Hamilton at (312)

353–4775 before visiting the Region 5

office.) USEPA Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604–

3590.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Nitrogen Oxides, Transportation

conformity.

Dated: August 8, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–22068 Filed 8–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 034–0049b; FRL–5880–5]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a revision to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concerns the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from the

storage of organic liquids.