Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 12583

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL–5710–7]

RIN 2060–AG70

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of

Volatile Organic Compounds—

Exclusion of 16 Compounds

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

16 compounds (shown in Table 3) to the

list of compounds excluded from the

definition of VOC on the basis that these

compounds have negligible contribution

to tropospheric ozone formation. These

compounds have potential for use as

refrigerants, aerosol propellants, fire

extinguishers, blowing agents and

solvents. Several of these compounds

may be used as alternatives to

chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) which are

being phased out of production as

stratospheric ozone depleters.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must

be received by April 16, 1997. Requests

for a hearing must be submitted by April

16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in duplicate (if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), Attention:

Docket No. A–96–36, 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 Management 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–96–36, 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

Management 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 use refrigerants, blowing agents,

or solvents.

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. To determine whether your

organization is regulated by this action,

you should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 51.100 of title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

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 September 25, 1995 the Alliance

for Responsible Atmospheric Policy

submitted to the EPA a petition which

requested that the compounds shown in

Table 1 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 original

petition also included five other

compounds (CFC–111, CFC–112, CFC–

112A, CFC–113a, and CFC–114a) not

shown in Table 1, but the petitioner

later requested that these compounds be

removed from consideration.)

Potential uses for these compounds

are also shown in Table 1. Blowing

agent refers to products used in the

manufacture of foamed plastic. The

compounds for which no use is shown

have no currently recognized

commercial end-use. They may be either

intermediates or unintentional

byproducts resulting from the

manufacture of other compounds. The

petition points out that the use of HCFC

and HFC compounds can be substituted

for CFC’s and can thereby reduce

potential chlorine effects on

stratospheric ozone.

TABLE 1.—COMPOUNDS PETITIONED

FOR VOC EXCLUSION (ALONG WITH

POTENTIAL USES OF COMPOUNDS)

Compound Potential use

HFC–32 ................. Refrigerant.

HFC–161 ............... Aerosol propellant,

blowing agent.

HFC–236fa ............ Fire extinguishant, refrigerant.

HFC–245ca ............ Refrigerant, blowing

agent.

HFC–245eb ........... Refrigerant, blowing

agent.

HFC 245fa ............. Refrigerant, blowing

agent.

HFC 245ea ............ Solvent.

HFC–236ea ........... Refrigerant, blowing

agent.

HFC–365mfc .......... Blowing agent.

HCFC–31.

HCFC–150a.

HCFC–151a.

HCFC–123a ........... Blowing agent.

C4F9OCH3 .............. Solvent.

(CF3)2CFCF2OCH3 Solvent.

C4F9OC2H5 ............ Solvent.

(CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5 Solvent.

In support of the petitions, the

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric

Policy supplied information on the

photochemical reactivity of the

individual compounds. This

information consisted mainly of the rate

constant for the reaction of the

compound with the hydroxyl (OH)

radical. This rate constant (kOH value) is

commonly used as one measure of the

photochemical reactivity of compounds.

The petitioner compared the rate

constants with that of ethane which has

already been listed as photochemically

negligibly reactive (ethane is the

compound with the highest kOH value

which is currently regarded as

negligibly reactive). The compounds

under consideration are listed in Table

2 along with their reported kOH rate

constants. The scientific information

which the petitioner has submitted in

support of the petition has been added

to the docket for this rulemaking. This

information includes references for the
12584 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

journal articles where the rate constant

values are published.

TABLE 2.—REACTION RATE CONSTANTS WITH OH RADICAL REPORTED RATE CONSTANT AT 25°C

Compound cm3/molecule/sec CAS number

Ethane ..................................................................................................................................... 2.4 × 10¥13

HFC–32 ................................................................................................................................... 1.0 × 10¥14 75–10–5

HFC–161 ................................................................................................................................. 17 × 10¥14 353–36–6

HFC–236fa .............................................................................................................................. 0.034 × 10¥14 690–39–2

HFC–245ca ............................................................................................................................. 0.91 × 10¥14 679–86–7

HFC–245ea ............................................................................................................................. 1.6 × 10¥14

HFC–245eb ............................................................................................................................. 1.5 × 10¥14 431–31–2

HFC–245fa .............................................................................................................................. 0.66 × 10¥14 690–39–1

HFC–236ea ............................................................................................................................. 0.66 × 10¥14 431–63–0

HFC–365mfc ........................................................................................................................... 0.87 × 10¥14 406–58–6

HCFC–31 ................................................................................................................................ 4.5 × 10¥14 593–70–4

HCFC–123a ............................................................................................................................ 1.23 × 10¥14 354–23–4

HCFC–150a ............................................................................................................................ 2.6 × 10¥13 75–34–3

HCFC–151a ............................................................................................................................ 6.9 × 10¥14 1615–75–4

C4F9OCH3 ............................................................................................................................... 1.4 × 10¥14 163702–07–6

(CF3)2CFCF2OCH3 .................................................................................................................. 1.4 × 10¥14 163702–08–7

C4F9OC2H5 .............................................................................................................................. 6.4 × 10¥14 163702–05–4

(CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5 ................................................................................................................. 6.4 × 10¥14 163702–06–5

II. The EPA Response to the Petitions

For the petition submitted by the

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric

Policy, the existing data support that the

reactivities of the compounds submitted

(except for HCFC–150a), with respect to

reaction with OH radicals in the

atmosphere, are lower than that of

ethane.

In the petition, the petitioner did not

submit reactivity data with respect to

other VOC loss reactions (such as

reaction with O-atoms, nitrogen trioxide

(NO3)-radicals, and ozone (O3), and for

photolysis). However, there is ample

evidence in the literature that

halogenated paraffinic VOC, such as the

compounds listed above, do not

participate in such reactions

significantly.

The information submitted by the

petitioner for HCFC–150a does not

justify the petitioners request that this

compound be declared ‘‘negligibly

reactive.’’ The reactivity of HCFC–150a

with respect to reaction with OH is

higher than that of ethane (i.e., 26 ×

10¥14 cm3 molecule¥1 s¥1 vs. 24 ×

10¥14 cm3 molecule¥1 s¥1, for reaction

rate constants). This suggests, but in the

absence of detailed information on the

atmospheric chemistry of HCFC–150a

does not prove, a higher ozone-forming

reactivity. In the cases of such VOC

species, for which conclusive scientific

evidence is not available, the EPA

policy has been to assume the VOC

species to have significant ozoneforming reactivity unless and until

additional specific evidence is produced

that attests the contrary position. At this

time, therefore, a ‘‘negligibly reactive’’

rating for HCFC–150a cannot be

justified.

The EPA is responding to the petition

by proposing in this notice to add the

compounds in Table 3 to the list of

compounds appearing in 40 CFR

51.100(s).

TABLE 3.—COMPOUNDS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF NEGLIGIBLY REACTIVE COMPOUNDS

Compound Chemical name or formula

HFC–32 ..................................................................................................... Difluoromethane.

HFC–161 ................................................................................................... Ethylfluoride.

HFC–236fa ................................................................................................ 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane.

HFC–245ca ............................................................................................... 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropentane.

HFC–245ea ............................................................................................... 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane.

HFC–245eb ............................................................................................... 1,1,1,3,4-pentafluoropentane.

HFC–245fa ................................................................................................ 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropentane.

HFC–236ea ............................................................................................... 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane.

HFC–365mfc ............................................................................................. 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane.

HCFC–31 .................................................................................................. chlorofluoromethane.

HCFC–123a .............................................................................................. 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane.

HCFC–151a .............................................................................................. 1 chloro-1-fluoroethane.

C4F9OCH3 ................................................................................................. 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane.

(CF3)2CFCF2OCH3 .................................................................................... 2-(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane.

C4F9OC2H5 ................................................................................................ 1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane.

(CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5 .................................................................................. 2-(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane.

III. Proposed Action

Today’s proposed action is based on

EPA’s review of the material in Docket

No. A–96–36. The EPA hereby proposes

to amend its definition of VOC at 40

CFR 51.100(s) to exclude the

compounds in Table 3 as VOC for ozone

SIP and ozone control purposes. The

revised definition will also apply in

Federal Implementation Plans for ozone

nonattainment areas pursuant to the 40

CFR 52.741(a)(3) definition of volatile

organic material or VOC. States are not

obligated to exclude from control as a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 12585

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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file for all information

submitted or otherwise considered by

EPA in the development of this

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

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Unfunded Mandates Act) (signed into

law on March 22, 1995) requires that the

Agency prepare a budgetary impact

statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditure by State,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100 million or more in any 1 year.

Section 204 requires the Agency to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the Agency must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The Agency must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the Agency explains

why this alternative is not selected or

the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Since this proposed rule is

deregulatory in nature and does not

impose a mandate upon any source, this

rule is not estimated to result in the

expenditure by State, local and tribal

governments or the private sector of

$100 million in any 1 year. Therefore,

the Agency has not prepared a

budgetary impact statement or

specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or

least burdensome alternative. Because

small governments will not be

significantly or uniquely affected by this

rule, the Agency is not required to

develop a plan with regard to small

governments.

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 an impact

on 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 of 1980, 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.

Dated: March 10, 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

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7641q.

2. Section 51.100 is proposed to be

amended by revising 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; 3,3-
12586 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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-pentafluoropentane

(HFC–245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-

pentafluoropropane (HFC–245ea);

1,1,1,3,4-pentafluoropentane (HFC–

245eb); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropentane

(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); 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. 97–6653 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 059–0005b; FRL–5697–4]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; Arizona State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a revision to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concerns the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

Commercial Bread Bakeries.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of this rule is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

In the Final Rules Section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the state’s SIP revision as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for this approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by April 16,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Andrew

Steckel, Rulemaking Office (Air-4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule and EPA’s

evaluation report of the rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Maricopa County Department of

Environmental Services, 2406 South

24th Street, Suite E–204, Phoenix, AZ

85034–6822.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Officer

(Air-4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, Telephone:

(415) 744–1197).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns Maricopa County

Environmental Services Department

Rule 343, Commercial Bread Bakeries,

submitted to EPA on August 31, 1995 by

the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality. For further

information, please see the information

provided in the Direct Final action

which is located in the Rules Section of

this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 19, 1997.

Nora L. McGee,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–5973 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–5710–6]

Fuels and Fuel Additives; Elimination

of Oxygenated Gasoline Program

Reformulated Gasoline (OPRG)

Category From the Reformulated

Gasoline Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

proposing to amend the reformulated

gasoline (RFG) regulations to eliminate

the separate treatment for a category of

gasoline used in oxygen averaging. This

category, oxygenated gasoline program

reformulated gasoline (OPRG), includes

gasoline intended for use in a state

oxygenated gasoline program control

area during the winter time. Under the

current RFG regulations, a refiner must

meet the oxygen content standards for

the entire pool of gasoline they produce,

and for the pool of gasoline they

produce that is non-OPRG. EPA is

proposing this action because it no

longer believes a distinction between

OPRG and non-OPRG is necessary and

because removal of the OPRG category

would add flexibility and reduce

compliance costs for regulated parties,

without producing a negative

environmental impact.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received by April 16, 1997. EPA

does not plan to hold a public hearing

on this proposed rule, unless one is

requested. If a request is received by

April 1, 1997, a public hearing will be

held. If such a hearing is held,

comments must be received within 30

days of the date of such hearing.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

proposed action should be addressed to

Public Docket # A–97–01, Air Docket

Section (Room M–1500, Waterside

Mall), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Documents related to this

proposed rule have been placed in the

public docket and may be inspected

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket material. Those wishing

to notify EPA of their intent to request

an opportunity for a public hearing on

this action should contact Anne-Marie