```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19231-19233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10809]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 
Sec. 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-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (CAS number 422-56-0) 
and 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-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            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reported rate constant at 25
                 Compound                     deg.C cm\3\/molecule/sec  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane...................................  2.4 x 10-13                  
HCFC-225ca...............................  2.5 x 10-14                  
HCFC-225cb...............................  8.6 x 10-15                  
HFC 43-10mee.............................  3.87 x 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 O-atoms, nitrogen trioxide (NO3)-radicals, and ozone 
0(O3), and for photolysis).

[[Page 19232]]

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. 
Sec. 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. Sec. 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:

Sec. 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

[[Page 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-trichloro-1,2,2-
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-chloro-1,1,1,2-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
```