Skip to Content

Proposed Rule

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds-Exclusion of HFE-7300

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

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 (SIPs) to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposed revision would add 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane [also known as HFE-7300 or L-14787 or C2 F5 CF(OCH3)CF(CF3)2] to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that this compound makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. If you use or produce HFE-7300 and are subject to EPA regulations limiting the use of VOC in your product, limiting the VOC emissions from your facility, or otherwise controlling your use of VOC for purposes related to attaining the ozone NAAQS, then you will not count HFE-7300 as a VOC in determining whether you meet these regulatory obligations. This action may also affect whether HFE-7300 is considered as a VOC for State regulatory purposes, depending on whether the State relies on EPA's definition of VOC. As a result, if you are subject to certain Federal regulations limiting emissions of VOCs, your emissions of HFE-7300 may not be regulated for some purposes.

DATES:

Comments on this proposal must be received by March 13, 2006. Requests for a hearing must be submitted by February 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0124, by one of the following methods:

  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
  • Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/​edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
  • E-mail: Send e-mail to the EPA Docket Center at a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
  • Fax: Send faxes to the EPA Docket Center at (202) 566-1741.
  • Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attn: Docket No. OAR-2005-0124, “Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds—Exclusion of HFE-7300.” Please include a total of two copies.
  • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0124. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/​edocket, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are “anonymous access” systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/​edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, Start Printed Page 6730is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

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. David Sanders, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (C539-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-3356. 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. Interested persons may call Mr. Sanders to see if a hearing will be held and the date and location of any hearing.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Sanders, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (C539-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone (919) 541-3356, or by e-mail at sanders.dave@epa.gov.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This compound has potential for use as a heat-transfer fluid. As a hydrofluoroether (HFE), this compound may be used as an alternative to ozone-depleting substances. Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program (CAA 612; 40 CFR part 82 subpart G), EPA may identify substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds, evaluate the acceptability of these substitutes, determine as acceptable for use those substitutes believed to present lower overall risks to human health and the environment (relative to the class I and class II compounds being replaced, as well as to other substitutes for the same end-use), and prohibit the use of those substitutes found, based on the same comparisons, to increase overall risks. Because they do not contain chlorine or bromine, they do not deplete the ozone layer. All HFEs have an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 0 although some HFEs have high global warming potential (GWP).

According to a U.S. patent application submitted by 3M Innovative Properties Company, the organic compound 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl pentane [C2 F5 CF(OCH3)CF(CH3)2] that is the subject of this notice possesses the capacity to form myriad azeotrope mixtures with other organic compounds such as 1-bromopropane, hexamethyldisilazane, isobutyl acetate, methylisobutyl ketone, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, and trifluoromethylbenzene which may not be exempt from VOC regulation. This patent application lists a broad range of processes and applications where these azeotropes can be used. Some of these azeotrope uses include: (1) Coating deposition applications, where the azeotrope functions as a carrier for a coating material, (2) heat-transfer fluids in heat-transfer processes, (3) to clean organic and/or inorganic substrates, and (4) to formulate working fluids or lubricants for machinery operations and manufacturing processes.

The patent application indicated that the azeotrope mixtures can be formulated at compositions of 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl pentane [C2 F5 CF(OCH3)CF(CH3)2] ranging from 1 to 100 percent, depending on the organic co-solvent and the desired properties of the azeotrope.

I. Background

Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOC and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and State governments limit the amount of VOC and NOX that can be released into the atmosphere. Volatile organic compounds are those compounds of carbon (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) which form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity—that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent. It has been EPA's policy that organic compounds with a negligible level of reactivity need not be regulated to reduce ozone. EPA determines whether a given organic compound has “negligible” reactivity by comparing the compound's reactivity to the reactivity of ethane. EPA lists these compounds in its regulations [at 40 CFR 51.100(s)] and excludes them from the definition of VOC. The chemicals on this list are often called “negligibly reactive” organic compounds.

On July 8, 1977, EPA published the “Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds” (42 FR 35314) which established the basic policy that EPA has used regarding organic chemical photochemical reactivity since that time. In that statement, EPA identified the following four compounds as being of negligible photochemical reactivity and said these should be exempt from regulation under SIPs: Methane; ethane; 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); and 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113). That policy statement said that as new information becomes available, EPA may periodically revise the list of negligibly reactive compounds to add compounds to or delete them from the list.

EPA's decision to exempt certain compounds in its 1977 policy was heavily influenced by experimental smog chamber work done earlier in the 1970's. In this experimental work, various compounds were injected into a smog chamber at a molar concentration that was typical of the total molar concentration of VOC in Los Angeles ambient air (4 ppmv). As the compound was allowed to react with NOX at concentrations of 0.2 ppm, the maximum ozone formed in the chamber was measured. If the compound in the smog chamber did not result in ozone formation of 0.08 ppm (0.08 ppm was the NAAQS for oxidants at that time), it was assumed that emissions of the compound would not cause the oxidant standard to be exceeded. The compound could then be considered to be negligibly reactive. Ethane was the most reactive compound tested that did not cause the 0.08 ppm ozone level in the smog chamber to be met or exceeded. Based on those findings and judgments, EPA designated ethane as negligibly reactive, and ethane became the benchmark VOC species separating reactive from negligibly reactive compounds.

Since 1977, the primary method for comparing the reactivity of a specific compound to that of ethane has been to compare the kOH values for ethane and the specific compound of interest. The kOH value represents the molar rate constant for reactions between the subject compound (e.g., ethane) and the hydroxyl radical (i.e., •OH). This reaction is very important since it is the primary pathway by which most organic compounds initially participate in atmospheric photochemical reaction processes. At this time, EPA has exempted 53 compounds or classes of compounds with 4 of these based on a new comparison using Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) values and Start Printed Page 6731the remainder based on a comparison of kOH values.

On August 30, 2004, the Performance Chemicals and Fluid Division of the 3M Company submitted to EPA a petition requesting that the compound 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane 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).

This compound would be used as a heat transfer liquid and for other heat transfer applications. In its petition, 3M points out that it has suggested HFE-7300 be used to reduce greenhouse gases resulting from emissions of compounds such as hydroflurocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and perfluoropolyethers in certain applications and, therefore, help reduce global warming potential.

In support of 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane, 3M Company supplied information on its photochemical reactivity. The 3M Company stated that, as a hydrofluoroether, this compound is very similar in structure, toxicity, and atmospheric properties to other compounds such as C4 F9 OCH3, (CH3)2 CFCF2 OCH3, C4 F9 OC2 H5, (CH3)2 CFCF2 OC2 H5, n-C3 F7 OCH3, and C3 F7 CF(OC2 H5)CF(CF3)2 which are exempt from the VOC definition.

Other information submitted by 3M Company consists mainly of a peer-reviewed article entitled “Atmospheric Chemistry of Some Fluoroethers,” Guschin, Molina, Molina: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 1998,which has been submitted to the docket. This article discusses a study in which the rate constant for the reaction of the subject compound with the hydroxyl (OH) radical is shown to be less than that for ethane and slightly more than that for methane. This rate constant (kOH value) is commonly used as one measure of the photochemical reactivity of compounds. The petitioner compared the subject compound rate constant with that of ethane, which has already been listed as photochemically negligibly reactive. The compound under consideration has the reported kOH rate constant as listed in Table 1 which is lower that that of ethane at 2.4 × 10−13. 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 journal articles where the rate constant values are published.

EPA has included the 3M Company Material Safety Data Sheet for HFE-7300 indicating the compound as having very low toxicity. This information has been placed in the docket.

Table 1.—Reaction Rate and Toxicity

CompoundOH Radical at 25 °C (cm3/molecule/sec)MIRToxicity
molegram
HFE-73001.5 × 10−14Not availableVery low.

II. EPA Response to the Petition

For the petition submitted by the 3M Company, the data submitted by the petitioners support the contention that the reactivity of the compound submitted, with respect to reaction with the OH radical in the atmosphere, is lower than that of ethane.

This notice to exempt 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl pentane [C2 F5 CF(OCH3)CF(CH3)2] as negligibly reactive from the VOC definition applies to this compound only in its pure state and does not apply to any of its azeotrope mixtures or organic blends in which any of the other constituents are not VOC exempt compounds. The term “pure state” is taken to mean at a composition purity level of at least 99.96 percent by weight (cited in the patent application 10/739,231 published on June 23, 2005 titled “Azeotrope-like Compositions and Their Use,” Publication Number: US 2005/0137113 A1) of 1,1,1,2,2, 3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl pentane [C2 F5 CF(OCH3)CF(CH3)2]. For those azeotrope mixtures and organic blends which contain both VOC exempt and non-exempt compounds, the amount of credit that can be apportioned as VOC exempt credit is limited to the total molar fraction of all the VOC exempt constituents contained in the mixture or blend.

EPA is responding to the petition by proposing in this action to add 1,1, 1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane (also known as HFE-7300) to the list of compounds appearing in 40 CFR 51.100(s).

III. Proposed Action

Today's proposed action is based on EPA's review of the material in Docket No. OAR-2005-0124. EPA hereby proposes to amend its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude HFE-7300 as VOC for ozone SIP and ozone control purposes. 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 may not take credit for controlling this compound in their ozone control strategy.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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 is not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain any information collection requirements Start Printed Page 6732subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. It does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirement.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply, with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency does not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The control numbers for EPA(s regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.

Today's proposed rule proposes to revise EPA's definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) for purposes of preparing State implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposed revision would add 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane [also known as HFE-7300 or L-14787 or [C2 F5 CF(OCH3)CF(CF3)2] to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that this compound makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 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 promulgating 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 objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation 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 agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. 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. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

This proposed action addressing the exemption of a chemical compound from the VOC definition does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Start Printed Page 6733Executive Order 13132. This action does not impose any new mandates on State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's action does not have any direct effects on Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and Tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

While this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, EPA has reason to believe that ozone has a disproportionate effect on active children who play outdoors (62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997). EPA has not identified any specific studies on whether or to what extent the chemical compound may affect children's health. EPA has placed the available data regarding the health effects of this chemical compound in Docket No. OAR-2005-0124. EPA invites the public to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assess results of early life exposure to the chemical compound HFE-7300.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

End List of Subjects Start Signature

Dated: February 3, 2006.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

End Signature

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:

Start Part

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

Start Authority

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7641q.

End Authority
[Amended]

2. Section 51.100 is amended at the end of paragraph (s)(1) introductory text by removing the words “and methyl formate (HCOOCH3), and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:” and adding in their place the words; “methyl formate (HCOOCH3), 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane (HFE-7300) and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:”.

End Part End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. E6-1800 Filed 2-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P