[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