Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds-Exclusion of HFE-7300, 6729-6733 [E6-1800]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6729-6733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1800]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[OAR-2005-0124; FRL-8030-1]
RIN 2060-AN34


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

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 
C2F5CF(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: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: https://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 https://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,

[[Page 6730]]

is 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.

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.

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 
[C2F5CF(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 
[C2F5CF(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

[[Page 6731]]

the 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 
C4F9OCH3, 
(CH3)2CFCF2OCH3, 
C4F9OC2H5, 
(CH3)2CFCF2OC2H5,
 n-C3F7OCH3, and 
C3F7CF(OC2H5)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 x 
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            MIR
           Compound              OH Radical at 25 [deg]C ----------------------------------------    Toxicity
                                   (cm3/molecule/sec)            mole                gram
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFE-7300......................              1.5 x 10-14                Not available              Very 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 
[C2F5CF(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 
[C2F5CF(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

[[Page 6732]]

subject 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 
[C2F5CF(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

[[Page 6733]]

Executive 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 3, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
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: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7641q.


Sec.  51.100  [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:''.

[FR Doc. E6-1800 Filed 2-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P