Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19231

APPENDIX A—COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND REVISED FEE AMOUNTS—Continued

37 CFR Sec. Description Pre-Oct

1996 Oct 1996

2.6(b)(10) ......................................................................... Labor Charges for Services ............................................... 30 —

2.6(b)(11) ......................................................................... Unspecified Other Services ............................................... (1) —

1Actual Cost.

—These fees are not affected by this rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 96–10765 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL–5466–9]

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of

Volatile Organic Compounds—

Exclusion of HFC 43–10mee and HCFC

225ca and cb

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 the Federal implementation plan

(FIP) for the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area. This proposed

revision would add HFC 43–10mee and

HCFC 225ca and cb to the list of

compounds excluded from the

definition of VOC on the basis that these

compounds have negligible contribution

to tropospheric ozone formation.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must

be received by May 31, 1996. Requests

for a hearing must be submitted by May

31, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in duplicate (if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), Attention:

Docket No. A–95–37, 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, North

Carolina. 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),

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

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. This action

is subject to the procedural

requirements of section 307(d)(1) (B), (J),

and (U) of the Act, and 42 U.S.C.

§ 7607(d)(1) (B), (J), and (U). Therefore,

EPA has established a public docket for

this action, A–95–37, 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:

I. Background

Petitions have been received from two

organizations asking for certain

compounds to 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). On December

12, 1994, Asahi Glass America, Inc.,

submitted a petition for HCFC 225 ca

and cb isomers. These compounds are

chemically named 3,3-dichloro1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (CAS

number 422–56–0) and 1,3-dichloro1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (CAS

number 507–55–1), respectively. On

March 13, 1995, the E.I. du Pont de

Nemours and Company submitted a

petition for the compound HFC 43–

10mee. This compound has the

chemical name 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-

decafluoropentane (CAS number

138495–42–8).

In support of their petitions, these

organizations 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 petitioners compared the rate

constants with that of other compounds

which have already been listed as

photochemically, negligibly reactive

(e.g., ethane which is the compound

with the highest kOH value that is

currently regarded as negligibly

reactive). The compounds for which

petitions were submitted are listed in

Table 1 along with their reported kOH

rate constants.

TABLE 1—REACTION RATE

CONSTANTS WITH OH RADICAL

Compound

Reported rate

constant at

25 °C cm3/

molecule/sec

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

HCFC–225ca .......................... 2.5×10¥14

HCFC–225cb .......................... 8.6×10¥15

HFC 43–10mee ...................... 3.87×10¥15

The scientific information which the

petitioners have submitted in support of

their petitions has been added to the

docket for this rulemaking. This

information includes references for the

journal articles where the rate constant

values are published.

II. The EPA Response to the Petitions

In regard to the petition for HCFC

225ca and HCFC 225cb, existing data

support that the reactivities of these

compounds with respect to reaction

with OH radicals in the atmosphere are

considerably lower than that of ethane.

This would indicate that these

compounds are less reactive than ethane

which is already classified as negligibly

reactive. Similarly, for HFC 43–10mee,

the rate constant of reaction with the

OH radical is considerably less than that

for ethane.

In each of the above petitions, the

petitioners did not submit reactivity

data with respect to other VOC loss

reactions (such as reaction with Oatoms, nitrogen trioxide (NO3)-radicals,

and ozone 0(O3), and for photolysis).
19232 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules

However, there is ample evidence in the

literature that halogenated paraffinic

VOC, such as these compounds, do not

participate in such reactions

significantly.

The EPA is responding to these

petitions by proposing, in this notice, to

add HFC 43–10mee and HCFC 225 ca

and cb to the list of compounds

appearing in 40 CFR 51.100(s).

III. Final Action

Today’s proposed action is based on

EPA’s review of the material in Docket

No. A–95–37. The EPA hereby proposes

to amend its definition of VOC at 40

CFR 51.100(s) to exclude HCFC 43–

10mee, HCFC 225ca and HCFC 225cb as

VOC for ozone SIP and ozone control

purposes. The revised definition will

apply in the Chicago ozone

nonattainment area 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

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. Because this

proposed rule is estimated to result in

the expenditure by State, local and

tribal governments or the private sector

of less than $100 million in any 1 year,

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

For proposed and final rules, the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires the Agency to perform a

regulatory flexibility analysis,

identifying the economic impact of the

rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. § 601 et.

seq. In the alternative, if the Agency

determines that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, the

Agency can make a certification to that

effect. Because this rule relieves a

restriction, it will not impose any

adverse economic impact on small

entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§ 605(b), I hereby certify that this action

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because it relaxes current

regulatory requirements rather than

imposing new ones.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

This 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: April 25, 1996.

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 paragraphs (s)

introductory text and (s)(1) introductory

text 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19233

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-pentaflouropropane

(HCFC–225cb); 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-

decafluoropentane (HFC 43–10mee);

and perfluorocarbon compounds which

fall into these classes:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–10809 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[MI43–02–7256; AMS–FRL–5466–6]

Approval And Promulgation Of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Michigan; Extension of

Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

extension of the comment period.

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the

comment period for a proposed action

published on April 2, 1996 (61 FR

14522) pertaining to the Grand Rapids

moderate ozone nonattainment area. On

April 2, 1996, the EPA proposed

approval of Michigan’s request to

redesignate the Grand Rapids moderate

ozone nonattainment area to attainment

for ozone and associated section 175A

maintenance plan revision to the

Michigan State Implementation Plan

(SIP) contingent on the State’s submittal

of a revision to the maintenance plan to

incorporate 3 additional control

programs to the list of contingency

measures. On April 19, 1996, the EPA

received a request for an extension of

the public comment period based on the

fact that the revision to the section 175A

maintenance plan SIP was not available

in the EPA’s docket until April 15, 1996.

Since the revision to the section 175A

maintenance plan SIP revision was not

available for approximately the first two

weeks of the public comment period,

the EPA is extending the comment

period only on the aspects of the

redesignation and corresponding section

175A maintenance plan SIP revision

components pertaining to the State’s

revision to the maintenance plan

submitted on April 15, 1996 for 14 days.

The public comment period pertaining

to the other components of the

redesignation request and maintenance

plan SIP revision are not extended and

comments on these components are due

to EPA by May 2, 1996.

DATES: Comments on the aspects of the

April 2, 1996, (61 FR 14522) proposed

action on the redesignation and

corresponding section 175A

maintenance plan pertaining to the

State’s April 15, 1996 SIP revision must

be received in writing by May 16, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline Nwia, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development

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

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 886–6081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Motor

vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxides,

Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 24, 1996.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–10782 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300422; FRL–5362–9]

RIN 2070–AB18

Capsaicin, and Ammonium Salts of

Fatty Acids; Proposed Tolerance

Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: For the pesticides subject to

the actions listed in this proposed rule,

EPA has completed the reregistration

process and issued a Reregistration

Eligibility Decision (RED). In the

reregistration process, all information to

support a pesticide’s continued

registration is reviewed for adequacy

and, when needed, supplemented with

new scientific studies. Based on the

RED tolerance assessments for the

pesticide chemicals subject to this

proposed rule, EPA is proposing to

exempt from the requirement of a

tolerance, all registered food uses for the

pesticides, capsaicin and ammonium

salts of fatty acids.

DATES: Written comments, identified

with the docket number [OPP–300422]

should be submitted to EPA by July 1,

1996.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this notice may be claimed

confidential by marking any part or all

of that information as ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (CBI).

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the comment(s) that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice to the submitter.

Any written comments will be available

for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the

Virginia address given above, from 8

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.