[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9339-9343]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04072]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0795; FRL-9942-80-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR65

Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory Definition of Volatile
Organic Compounds--Requirements for t-Butyl Acetate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the
EPA's regulatory definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). The regulatory definition of VOC currently
excludes t-butyl acetate (also known as tertiary butyl acetate or TBAC;
CAS Number: 540-88-5) for purposes of VOC emissions limitations or VOC
content requirements on the basis that it makes a negligible
contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. However, the current
definition includes TBAC as a VOC for purposes of all recordkeeping,
emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory
requirements which apply to VOC. This final action removes the
recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling
and inventory requirements related to the use of TBAC as a VOC.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0795. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Souad Benromdhane, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts
Division, Mail Code C539-07, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-5315; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background
    A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy
    B. History of the VOC Exemption for TBAC Including the Unique
Recordkeeping, Emissions Reporting, Photochemical Dispersion
Modeling and Inventory Requirements
    C. Petition to Remove Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
from the TBAC Exemption
III. The EPA's Assessment of the Petition
IV. Public Comments
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities affected by this final rule include, but are not
necessarily limited to, state and local air pollution control agencies
that prepare VOC emission inventories and ozone attainment
demonstrations for state implementation plans (SIPs). These agencies
are relieved of the requirements to separately inventory emissions of
TBAC. This final action may also affect manufacturers, distributors and
users of TBAC and TBAC-containing products, which may include paints,
inks and adhesives. This action allows state air agencies to no longer
require these entities to report emissions of TBAC.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of this final rule will be posted on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for promulgated rules at the
following address: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/actions.html#impl. The TTN provides information and technology exchange
in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP Line at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the
final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition
for review by the Administrator of this final action does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such action.
Thus, any petitions for review of this final action related to the
elimination of recordkeeping of TBAC must be filed in the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the
date this final action is published in the Federal Register.

II. Background

A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOC and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere in the
presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone,
the EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOC that can be
released into the atmosphere. VOCs are organic compounds of carbon,
many of

which form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Different
VOC have different levels of reactivity. That is, they do not react to
form ozone at the same speed or to the same extent. Some VOC react
slowly or form less ozone; therefore, changes in their emissions have
limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has
been the EPA's policy that organic compounds with a negligible level of
reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC so
as to focus control efforts on compounds that do significantly affect
ozone concentrations. The EPA also believes that exempting such
compounds creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive
compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated
as VOC. The EPA lists compounds that it has determined to be negligibly
reactive in its regulations as being excluded from the regulatory
definition of VOC (40 CFR 51.100(s)).
    The CAA requires the regulation of VOC for various purposes.
Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that the EPA has the authority to
define the meaning of ``VOC,'' and hence what compounds shall be
treated as VOC for regulatory purposes. The policy of excluding
negligibly reactive compounds from the regulatory definition of VOC was
first laid out in the ``Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds'' (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977) and was supplemented
subsequently with the ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' (70 FR 54046, September
13, 2005) (from here forward referred to as the 2005 Interim Guidance).
The EPA uses the reactivity of ethane as the threshold for determining
whether a compound has negligible reactivity. Compounds that are less
reactive than, or equally reactive to, ethane under certain assumed
conditions may be deemed negligibly reactive and, therefore, suitable
for exemption by the EPA from the regulatory definition of VOC.
Compounds that are more reactive than ethane continue to be considered
VOC for regulatory purposes and, therefore, are subject to control
requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound was
based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the 1977
policy.
    The EPA uses two different metrics to compare the reactivity of a
specific compound to that of ethane: (1) The reaction rate constant
(known as kOH) with the hydroxyl radical (OH); and (2) the
maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) on ozone production per unit mass
basis. Differences between these metrics and the rationale for their
selection is discussed further in the 2005 Interim Guidance.

B. History of the VOC Exemption for TBAC Including the Unique
Recordkeeping, Emissions Reporting, Photochemical Dispersion Modeling
and Inventory Requirements

    On January 17, 1997, ARCO Chemical Company (now known as and from
here forward referred to as LyondellBasell) submitted a petition to the
EPA, which requested that the EPA add TBAC to the list of compounds
that are designated negligibly reactive in the regulatory definition of
VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). The materials submitted in support of this
petition are contained in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0084. LyondellBasell's
case for TBAC being less reactive than ethane was based primarily on
the use of relative incremental reactivity factors set forth in a 1997
report by Carter, et al.\1\ Although the kOH values for TBAC
are higher than for ethane, Carter's results indicated that the MIR
value for TBAC, expressed in units of grams of ozone per gram of TBAC,
was between 0.43 and 0.48 times the MIR for ethane, depending on the
chemical mechanism used to calculate the MIR. In other words, TBAC
formed less than half as much ozone as an equal mass of ethane under
the conditions assumed in the calculation of the MIR scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Carter, William P.L., Dongmin Luo, and Irina L. Malkina
(1997). Investigation of the Atmospheric Ozone Formation Potential
of T-Butyl Acetate, Report to ARCO Chemical Corporation, Riverside:
College of Engineering Center for Environmental Research and
Technology, University of California, 97-AP-RT3E-001-FR, http://
www.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/pubs/tbuacetr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 1999, the EPA proposed to revise the regulatory
definition of VOC to exclude TBAC, relying on the comparison of MIR
factors expressed on a mass basis to conclude that TBAC is negligibly
reactive (64 FR 52731, September 30, 1999). However, in the final rule,
the EPA concluded at that time that even ``negligibly reactive''
compounds may contribute significantly to ozone formation if present in
sufficient quantities and that emissions of these compounds need to be
represented accurately in photochemical modeling analyses. In addition
to these general concerns about the potential cumulative impacts of
negligibly reactive compounds, the need to maintain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for TBAC was further justified by the potential
for widespread use of TBAC, the fact that its relative reactivity falls
close to the borderline of what has been considered negligibly
reactive, and continuing efforts to assess long-term health risks.\2\
Based on these conclusions, in 2004, the EPA promulgated a final rule
that excluded TBAC from the definition of VOC for purposes of VOC
emissions limitations or VOC content requirements, but continued to
define TBAC as a VOC for purposes of all recordkeeping, emissions
reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements
that apply to VOC (69 FR 69298, November 29, 2004) (from here forward
referred to as the 2004 Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Between the EPA's proposed and final rule exempting TBAC as
a VOC, the state of California raised concerns to the EPA about the
potential carcinogenicity of tertiary-butanol, or TBA, the principal
metabolite of TBAC. At the time, the EPA decided that there was
insufficient evidence of health risks to affect the exemption
decision, but persuaded LyondellBasell to voluntarily perform
additional toxicity testing, use the testing results in a health
risk assessment, and have the testing and assessment results
reviewed in a peer consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2004 Final Rule, the EPA argued that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements were not new requirements for TBAC as industry
and states were already subject to such requirements to report TBAC as
a VOC prior to the exemption. However, in practice, the rule created a
new, distinct recordkeeping and reporting burden by requiring that TBAC
be ``uniquely identified'' in emission reports, rather than aggregated
with other compounds as VOC. The final rule explained that the EPA was
in the process of reviewing its overall VOC exemption policy and that
the potential for retaining recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for compounds exempted from the definition of VOC in the future would
be considered in that process. That process led to the development of
the 2005 Interim Guidance, which encouraged the development of
speciated inventories for highly reactive compounds and identified the
voluntary submission of emissions estimates for exempt compounds as an
option for further consideration, but did not recommend mandatory
reporting requirements associated with future exemptions. Thus, TBAC
was the only compound that was excluded from the VOC definition for
purposes of emission controls but was still considered a VOC for
purposes of recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

C. Petition To Remove Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements From the
TBAC Exemption

    The EPA received a petition from LyondellBasell in December 2009,

which was re-affirmed in November 2011, requesting the removal of
recordkeeping and reporting requirements from the final rule to exempt
TBAC from the regulatory VOC definition. LyondellBasell contends that
the emissions reporting requirements are redundant and present an
unnecessary burden. In 2015, the EPA issued a proposed rule (80 FR
6481, February 5, 2015) \3\ in order to relieve manufacturers and users
from recordkeeping and reporting requirements that were part of the
2004 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-05/pdf/2015-02325.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Assessment of the Petition

    In most cases, when a negligibly reactive VOC is exempted from the
definition of VOC, emissions of that compound are no longer recorded,
collected, or reported to states or the EPA as part of VOC emissions.
When the EPA exempted TBAC from the VOC definition for purposes of
control requirements in the 2004 Final Rule, the EPA created a new
category of compounds and a new reporting requirement that required
that emissions of TBAC be reported separately by states and, in turn,
by industry. However, the EPA did not issue any guidance on how TBAC
emissions should be tracked and reported, and implementation of this
requirement by states has been inconsistent. A few states have modified
their rules and emissions inventory processes to track TBAC emissions
separately and provide that information to the EPA. Others have
included TBAC with other undifferentiated VOC in their emissions
inventories. Thus, the data that have been reported to date as a result
of these requirements are incomplete and inconsistent. In addition, the
EPA has not established protocols for receiving and analyzing TBAC
emissions data collected under the requirements of the 2004 Final Rule.
    Although the reactivity of TBAC and other negligibly reactive
compounds is low, if emitted in large quantities, they could still
contribute significantly to ozone formation in some locations. However,
without speciated emissions estimates or extensive speciated
hydrocarbon measurements, it is difficult to assess the impacts of any
one exempted compound or even the cumulative impact of all of the
exempted compounds.
    In the 2004 Final Rule, the EPA stated the primary objective of the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for TBAC was to address these
cumulative impacts of ``negligibly reactive'' compounds and suggested
that future exempt compounds may also be subject to such requirements.
However, such requirements have not been included in any other proposed
or final VOC exemptions since the TBAC decision. Having high quality
data on TBAC emissions alone is unlikely to be very useful in assessing
the cumulative impacts of these compounds on ozone formation. Thus, the
requirements are not achieving their primary objective to inform more
accurate photochemical modeling in support of SIP submissions.
    In the 2004 Final Rule, EPA also noted that recordkeeping and
reporting requirements were justified in light of the continuing
efforts to characterize long-term health risks associated with TBAC and
its metabolite tertiary-butyl alcohol (TBA). Since the rule was
finalized, those efforts have resulted in at least two studies
regarding the long-term health risks associated with TBAC and TBA.
LyondellBasell performed additional toxicity testing and a health risk
assessment and submitted the peer-consultation results to the EPA in
2009.\4\ In addition, in 2006, the state of California published its
own assessment of the potential health effects associated with TBA and
TBAC.\5\ Also, the EPA is currently in the process of assessing the
evidence for health risks from TBA through its Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) program.\6\ This is the first IRIS assessment
for TBA. A draft of this assessment is expected to be released for
public comment later this year. However, the existing toxicity
information being examined in the IRIS assessment does not rely on any
of the data collected through the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements at issue in this rule, and, thus, continuation of those
requirements does not appear relevant to any likely future
determinations about the health risks associated with TBAC or TBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (2009). Report of
the Peer Consultation of the Potential Risk of Health Effects from
Exposure to Tertiary-Butyl Acetate, January 7-8, 2009, Northern
Kentucky University METS Center, Erlanger, Kentucky, Volumes I and
II, http://www.tera.org/Peer/TBAC/index.html.
    \5\ Luo, Dongmin, et al. (2006) Environmental Impact Assessment
of Tertiary-Butyl Acetate, Staff Report, Sacramento: California
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, January 2006,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/tbacf.pdf;http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/tbaca1.pdf; http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/tbaca2.pdf; and Budroe, John D.,
et al (2015) Tertiary Butyl Acetate Inhalation Cancer Unit Risk
Factors, Appendix B, Public Review Draft August 2015. California
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/pdf/PublicReviewDraftTBAc_URF081415.pdf.
    \6\ See http://www.epa.gov/iris/publicmeeting/iris_bimonthly-dec2013/mtg_docs.htm#etbe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Public Comments

    The EPA received five comments on the proposed rule referenced
above from industry in support of this final action. No adverse
comments were received.

V. Final Action

    The EPA is removing the recordkeeping, emissions reporting,
photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements for TBAC.
    There is no evidence that TBAC is being used at levels that would
cause concern for ozone formation. Additionally, the EPA believes these
requirements, which are unique among all VOC-exempt compounds, are of
limited utility because they do not provide sufficient information to
judge the cumulative impacts of exempted compounds, and because the
data have not been consistently collected and reported. Because these
requirements are not addressing any of the concerns as they were
intended, the EPA is removing the requirements for TBAC to relieve
industry and states of the associated information collection burden.
    This final action removes recordkeeping, emissions reporting,
photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements related to
the use of TBAC. This action does not affect the existing exclusion of
TBAC from the regulatory definition of VOC for purposes of emission
limits and control requirements.
    We note that removal of the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements does not indicate that the EPA has reached final
conclusions about all aspects of the health effects posed by the use of
TBAC or its metabolite TBA. The EPA is currently awaiting completion of
the IRIS assessment on the potential risks involved with TBA and its
toxicity. If it becomes clear that action is warranted due to the
health risks of direct exposure to TBA or TBAC, the EPA will consider
the range of authorities at its disposal to mitigate these risks
appropriately.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. It does not contain any new recordkeeping or reporting
requirements. This action removes recordkeeping, emissions reporting,
photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements related to
use of TBAC.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    After considering the economic impacts of the TBAC final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities. 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, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on the small entities subject to the rule. This action removes
recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling
and inventory requirements related to use of TBAC. We have, therefore,
concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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. In fact,
this should reduce the burden on states.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This final action removes existing emission
inventory reporting and other requirements that uniquely apply to TBAC
among all VOC-exempt compounds. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action removes recordkeeping,
emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory
requirements related to use of TBAC. It does not affect the existing
exclusion of TBAC from the regulatory definition of VOC for purposes of
emission limits and control requirements.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations. The EPA did not conduct an environmental analysis for this
rule because the EPA does not believe that removing the unique
reporting requirements will lead to substantial and predictable changes
in the use of TBAC in and near particular communities.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

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 17, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
51 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

Subpart F--Procedural Requirements

0
1. The authority citation for part 51, subpart F, continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479,
7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.

0
2. Section 51.100 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (s)(1); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (s)(5).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  51.100  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (s)(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-
pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb); 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluoropentane
(HFC 43-10mee); difluoromethane (HFC-32); ethylfluoride (HFC-161);
1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa);

1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane
(HFC-245ea); 1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb); 1,1,1,3,3-
pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-
236ea); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc); chlorofluoromethane
(HCFC-31); 1 chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a); 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-
trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-
butane (C4F9OCH3 or HFE-7100); 2-
(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
((CF3)2CFCF2OCH3); 1-
ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane
(C4F9OC2H5 or HFE-7200); 2-
(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
((CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5
); methyl acetate; 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane (n-
C3F7OCH3, HFE-7000); 3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-
(trifluoromethyl) hexane (HFE-7500); 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
(HFC 227ea); methyl formate (HCOOCH3); 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-
3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane (HFE-7300); propylene carbonate;
dimethyl carbonate; trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene;
HCF2OCF2H (HFE-134);
HCF2OCF2OCF2H (HFE-236cal2);
HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (HFE-
338pcc13);
HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2
H (H-Galden 1040x or H-Galden ZT 130 (or 150 or 180)); trans 1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene; 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene; 2-amino-2-
methyl-1-propanol; t-butyl acetate; and perfluorocarbon compounds which
fall into these classes:
* * * * *
    (5) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-04072 Filed 2-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P