37610 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 

11023, 11048. 

§ 9.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The table in § 9.1 is amended by 

removing under the undesignated center 

heading ‘‘Significant New Uses of 

Chemical Substances’’ § 721.10423. 

PART 721—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 721 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 

2625(c). 

§ 721.10423 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove § 721.10423. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15227 Filed 6–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0605; FRL–9679–2] 

RIN 2060–AQ38 

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of 

Volatile Organic Compounds— 

Exclusion of trans-1,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoropropene 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action revises the EPA’s 

definition of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). This revision adds trans1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known 

as HFO-1234ze) 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. As a result, if you are subject 

to certain federal regulations limiting 

emissions of VOCs, your emissions of 

HFO-1234ze may not be regulated for 

some purposes. This action may also 

affect whether HFO-1234ze is 

considered a VOC for state regulatory 

purposes, depending on whether the 

state relies on the EPA’s definition of 

VOC. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on July 

23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0605. 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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0605, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue Northwest, 

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 Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0605 is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Sanders, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Policy Division, Mail Code C539–01, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone: (919) 541–3356; fax number: 

919–541–0824; email address: 

sanders.dave@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

final rule include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, states (typically 

state air pollution control agencies) that 

control VOCs, and industries involved 

in the manufacture or use of 

refrigerants, aerosol propellants and 

blowing agents for insulating foams. 

Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, 

but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding entities likely to be affected by 

this action. This table lists the types of 

entities that the EPA is now aware of 

that could potentially be affected by this 

action. Other types of entities not listed 

in the table could also be affected. If you 

have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. This 

action has no substantial direct effects 

on industry because it does not impose 

any new mandates on these entities, but, 

to the contrary, removes HFO-1234ze 

from the regulatory definition of VOC. 

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY AFFECTED REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES

Industry group SIC a NAICSb

Refrigerants ................................................................................................................................... 2869, 3585 238220, 336111, 336391 

Aerosol propellants ........................................................................................................................ 2869 325998 

Blowing agents .............................................................................................................................. 2869, 3086 326140, 326150 

aStandard Industrial Classification. 

b North American Industry Classification System. 

The use of this compound remains 

subject to other restrictions under the 

CAA. Specifically, the use of this 

compound as an aerosol propellant, 

blowing agent, or refrigerant or any 

other use in which it would substitute 

for chlorofluorocarbons, 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or their 

substitutes, is subject to regulation 

under the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) program (CAA § 612; 40 

CFR 82 subpart G). The SNAP program 

has issued final listings for HFO-1234ze 

as an acceptable foam and refrigerant 

substitute and as an aerosol propellant 

(74 FR 50129, September 30, 2009; 75 

FR 34017, June 16, 2010). 

B. How is this preamble organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How is this preamble organized? 

II. Background 

A. The EPA’s VOC Exemption Policy 

B. Petition to List HFO-1234ze as Exempt 

III. Proposed Action and Response to 

Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. 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 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 37611 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Judicial Review 

II. Background 

A. The EPA’s VOC Exemption Policy 

Tropospheric ozone, commonly 

known as smog, is formed when VOCs 

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 VOCs that can be 

released into the atmosphere. The VOCs 

are those organic compounds of carbon 

which form ozone through atmospheric 

photochemical reactions. Different 

VOCs have different levels of 

reactivity—that is, they do not react to 

form ozone at the same speed or do not 

form ozone to the same extent. Some 

VOCs 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 VOC definition so as to focus 

VOC control efforts on compounds that 

do significantly increase 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 VOCs. The EPA lists 

compounds that it has determined to be 

negligibly reactive in its regulations (at 

40 CFR 51.100(s)) as being excluded 

from the definition of VOC. 

The CAA requires the regulation of 

VOCs 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 VOCs for regulatory 

purposes. The policy of excluding 

negligibly reactive compounds from the 

VOC definition was first laid out in the 

‘‘Recommended Policy on Control of 

Volatile Organic Compounds’’ (42 FR 

35314, July 8, 1977) and was 

supplemented most recently with the 

‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of 

Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone 

State Implementation Plans’’ (Interim 

Guidance) (70 FR 54046, September 13, 

2005). 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 from the VOC definition. 

Compounds that are more reactive than 

ethane continue to be considered VOCs 

for regulatory purposes and therefore 

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 has used three different 

metrics to compare the reactivity of a 

specific compound to that of ethane: (i) 

The reaction rate constant (known as 

kOH) with the hydroxyl radical (OH); (ii) 

the maximum incremental reactivity 

(MIR) on a reactivity per unit mass 

basis; and (iii) the MIR expressed on a 

reactivity per mole basis. Differences 

between these three metrics are 

discussed below. 

The kOH is the reaction rate constant 

of the compound with the OH radical in 

the air. This reaction is typically the 

first step in a series of chemical 

reactions by which a compound breaks 

down in the air and participates in the 

ozone-forming process. If this step is 

slow, the compound will likely not form 

ozone at a very fast rate. The kOH values 

have long been used by the EPA as a 

metric of photochemical reactivity and 

ozone-forming activity, and they have 

been the basis for most of the EPA’s 

previous exemptions of negligibly 

reactive compounds from the regulatory 

definition of VOC. The kOH metric is 

inherently a molar comparison, i.e., it 

measures the rate at which molecules 

react. 

The MIR values, both by mole and by 

mass, are a more recently developed 

metric of photochemical reactivity 

derived from a computer-based 

photochemical model. This metric 

considers the complete ozone forming 

activity of a compound on a single day, 

and not merely the first reaction step. 

The MIR values for compounds are 

typically expressed as grams of ozone 

formed per gram of VOC (mass basis), 

but may also be expressed as grams of 

ozone formed per mole of VOC (molar 

basis). For comparing the reactivities of 

two compounds, using the molar MIR 

values considers an equal number of 

molecules of the two compounds. 

Alternatively, using the mass MIR 

values compares an equal mass of the 

two compounds, which will involve 

different numbers of molecules, 

depending on the relative molecular 

weights. The molar MIR comparison is 

consistent with the original smog 

chamber experiments that underlie the 

original selection of ethane as the 

threshold compound, in that these 

experiments compared equal molar 

concentrations of individual VOCs. It is 

also consistent with previous reactivity 

determinations based on kOH values, 

which are inherently molar. By contrast, 

the mass MIR comparison is more 

consistent with how MIR values and 

other reactivity metrics have been 

applied in reactivity-based emission 

limits, such as the national VOC 

emissions standards for aerosol coatings 

(73 FR 15604). Many other VOC 

regulations contain limits based upon a 

weight of VOC per volume of product, 

such as the EPA’s regulations for 

limiting VOC emissions from 

architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings (40 CFR part 59 

subpart D). However, the fact that 

regulations are structured to measure 

VOC content by weight for ease of 

implementation and enforcement does 

not necessarily control whether VOC 

exemption decisions should be made on 

a weight basis as well. 

The choice of the molar basis versus 

the mass basis for the ethane 

comparison can be significant. In some 

cases, a compound might be considered 

less reactive than ethane under the mass 

basis but not under the molar basis. For 

compounds with a molecular weight 

higher than that of ethane, use of the 

mass basis results in more VOCs being 

classified as less reactive than ethane 

than does use of the molar basis. 

The EPA has considered the choice 

between a molar or mass basis for the 

comparison to ethane in past 

rulemakings and guidance. In the 

Interim Guidance, the EPA stated: 

[A] comparison to ethane on a mass basis 

strikes the right balance between a threshold 

that is low enough to capture compounds 

that significantly affect ozone concentrations 

and a threshold that is high enough to 

exempt some compounds that may usefully 

substitute for more highly reactive 

compounds. 

When reviewing compounds that have 

been suggested for VOC-exempt status, EPA 

will continue to compare them to ethane 

using kOH expressed on a molar basis and 

MIR values expressed on a mass basis. 

The EPA’s 2005 Interim Guidance 

also noted that concerns have 

sometimes been raised about the 

potential impact of a VOC exemption on 

environmental endpoints other than 

ozone concentrations, including fine 

particle formation, air toxics exposures, 

stratospheric ozone depletion and 

climate change. The EPA has 

recognized, however, that there are 

existing regulatory and non-regulatory 

programs that are specifically designed 

to address these issues, and the EPA 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
37612 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

continues to believe that the impacts of 

VOC exemptions on environmental 

endpoints other than ozone formation 

will be adequately addressed by these 

programs. The VOC exemption policy is 

intended to facilitate attainment of the 

ozone NAAQS, and questions have been 

raised as to whether the agency has 

authority to use its VOC exemption 

policy to address concerns that are 

unrelated to ground-level ozone. Thus, 

in general, VOC exemption decisions 

will continue to be based solely on 

consideration of a compound’s 

contribution to ozone formation. 

However, if the EPA determines that a 

particular VOC exemption is likely to 

result in a significant increase in the use 

of a compound and that the increased 

use would pose a significant risk to 

human health or the environment that 

would not be addressed adequately by 

existing programs or policies, the EPA 

reserves the right to exercise its 

judgment in deciding whether to grant 

an exemption. 

B. Petition To List HFO-1234ze as 

Exempt 

Honeywell, Inc. submitted a petition 

to the EPA on December 2, 2009, 

requesting that HFO-1234ze (CAS 

29118–24–9) be exempted from VOC 

control based on its low reactivity 

relative to ethane. The petitioner 

indicated that HFO-1234ze may be used 

in a variety of applications including as 

a refrigerant, an aerosol propellant, and 

a blowing agent for insulating foam. 

This molecule has diverse applications 

including as a blowing agent for 

polyurethanes, polystyrene and other 

polymers, and as an aerosol propellant. 

Honeywell submitted several 

documents, including several peerreviewed journal articles, to support its 

petition, and we made these available in 

the docket for this action. These 

documents contained kOH values and 

MIR reactivity rates for ethane and HFO1234ze. This information is reproduced 

below in Table 2. From the data in Table 

2, it can be seen that the MIR for HFO1234ze on a grams of ozone formed per 

gram of VOC basis is 0.098 which is 

only 35 percent that for ethane at 0.28 

on the same basis. However, HFO1234ze has a higher kOH value than 

ethane, meaning that it initially reacts 

more quickly in the atmosphere than 

ethane. A molecule of HFO-1234ze is 

also more reactive than a molecule of 

ethane, as shown by the molar MIR 

(gO3/mole VOC) values, since equal 

numbers of moles have equal numbers 

of molecules. 

TABLE 2—REACTIVITIES OF ETHANE AND HFO-1234ZE

Compound kOH

(cm3/molecule-sec) 

MIR 

(gO3/mole VOC) 

MIR 

(gO3/gram VOC) 

Ethane .................................................................. 2.4 × 10¥13 ........................................................... 8.4 0 .28 

HFO-1234ze ......................................................... 9.25 × 10¥13 ......................................................... 11.2 0 .098 

Notes: 

1. kOH value for ethane is from: R. Atkinson, D. L. Baulch, R. A. Cox, J. N. Crowley, R. F. Hampson, Jr., R. G. Hynes, M. E. Jenkin, J. A. Kerr, 

M. J. Rossi, and J. Troe (2004), Summary of evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for atmospheric chemistry. The reference cited in Note 3 

gives a kOH value of 2.54 × 10¥13 for ethane, slightly different than the value shown in the table. 

2. kOH value for HFO-1234ze is from: R. Sondergaard, O. J. Nielsen, M. D. Hurley, T. J. Wallington, and R. Singh, ‘‘Atmospheric chemistry of 

trans-CF3CH=CHF: kinetics of the gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3.’’ Chemical Physics Letters, 443 (2007) 199–204. 

3. Maximum incremental reactivity or MIR (gO3/g VOC) values for ethane (page 177) and HFO-1234ze (page 201) are from: William P. L. Carter, ‘‘Development of the SAPRC–07 chemical mechanism and updated ozone reactivity scales’’ (updated 1/27/10). 

4. Molar MIR (gO3/mole VOC) values were calculated from the mass MIR (gO3/g VOC) values by determining the number of moles per gram 

of the relevant organic compound. 

III. Proposed Action and Response to 

Comments 

Based on the mass MIR (gO3/g VOC) 

value for HFO-1234ze being equal to or 

less than that of ethane, the EPA 

proposed to find that HFO-1234ze is 

‘‘negligibly reactive’’ and to exempt 

HFO-1234ze from the regulatory 

definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). 

In the proposal, the EPA noted that the 

EPA’s New Chemicals program under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) and the EPA’s SNAP program 

under the CAA have both reviewed 

HFO-1234ze for potential risks to 

human health and the environment. 

After considering all relevant data 

currently available, the EPA was unable 

to find any unreasonable risks to human 

health or the environment from the 

expected use of HFO-1234ze. Based on 

this finding, the EPA did not find it 

necessary to take any actions to prevent 

unreasonable risk under TSCA. The 

SNAP program has issued 

determinations of acceptability for HFO1234ze as an acceptable substitute for 

certain ozone depleting substances in a 

number of foam blowing end uses, as a 

refrigerant in non-mechanical heat 

transfer and as a propellant as stated in 

Section I. 

There were four comments submitted 

to the docket during the public 

comment period. One comment was 

from the petitioning manufacturer 

Honeywell. One comment came from a 

manufacturer of products containing the 

compound. This commenter wrote that 

as a manufacturer of high quality 

specialty chemicals and supplies for 

electronic maintenance and repair, it 

considers HFO-1234ze to be a potential 

alternative to products containing 

higher global-warming potential 

compounds such as HFC-134a and HFC152a. It further stated that in order for 

this product to be marketed in all parts 

of the U.S., it is essential that it be 

classified as a non-VOC. Separate 

comments came from two trade 

associations. All comments were in 

favor of exempting HFO-1234ze. None 

of the comments opposed using the 

gO3/g VOC basis. The one comment 

which addressed that issue supported 

the use of the MIR on a gO3/g VOC basis 

for granting exemptions. 

IV. Final Action 

The EPA is amending its definition of 

VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude 

HFO-1234ze as a VOC for ozone SIP and 

ozone control purposes. States are not 

obligated to exclude HFO-1234ze from 

control as a VOC. However, states may 

not take credit for controlling HFO1234ze in their ozone control strategies. 

In our October 17, 2011, proposal (76 

FR 64059), we also proposed to exempt 

2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known 

as HFO-1234yf) from the definition of 

VOC. We are not taking final action on 

that proposal at this time. 

V. 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’’ under the terms of 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 37613 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It does not 

contain any recordkeeping or reporting 

requirement. 

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 final 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 this 

notice on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) A small business that is 

a small industrial entity as defined in 

the U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR 

121.201); (2) A 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 this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments, or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

addresses the exemption of a chemical 

compound from the VOC definition. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866. While this final 

rule is not subject to the Executive 

Order, the EPA has reason to believe 

that ozone has a disproportionate effect 

on active children who play outdoors 

(62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997). The 

EPA has not identified any specific 

studies on whether or to what extent 

this chemical compound may affect 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. This action revises the EPA’s 

definition of VOCs for purposes of 

preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS for 

ozone under title I of the CAA. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the 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 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. This action does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 

is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it will not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 

application; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties, 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
37614 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

regarding this action under section 801 

because this is a rule of particular 

applicability to manufacturers and users 

of these specific exempt chemical 

compounds. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 

rule will be effective on July 23, 2012. 

L. 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 

final, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such action. Thus, any 

petitions for review of this action 

related to the exemption of HFO-1234ze 

from the definition of VOC must be filed 

in the Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from 

the date final action is published in the 

Federal Register. 

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: June 7, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 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. 

§ 51.100 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 51.100 is amended at the 

end of paragraph (s)(1) introductory text 

by removing the words ‘‘and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’ and adding in their 

place the words ‘‘trans-1,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoropropene; and perfluorocarbon 

compounds which fall into these 

classes:’’. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15347 Filed 6–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 61 and 69 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 07–135, 05–337, 

03–109; GN Docket No. 09–51; CC Docket 

Nos. 01–92, 96–45; WT Docket No. 10–208; 

FCC 11–161] 

Tariffs (Other Than Tariff Review Plan); 

Connect America Fund; A National 

Broadband Plan for Our Future; 

Establishing Just and Reasonable 

Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; 

High-Cost Universal Service Support 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of 3 years, 

revisions to an information collection 

associated with the Commission’s 

Connect America Fund, Report and 

Order (Order). The Commission 

submitted revisions to this information 

collection under control number 3060– 

0298 to OMB for review and approval, 

as required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520), 77 FR 20629, April 5, 2012. OMB 

approved the revisions on May 29, 2012. 

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 

61.3(bbb)(2) and 69.3(e)(12) published at 

76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, were 

approved by OMB on May 29, 2012, and 

are effective on June 22, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Belinda Nixon, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–1520 or TTY: (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that, on May 29, 

2012, OMB approved, for a period of 3 

years, information collection 

requirements contained in the 

Commission’s Order, FCC 11–161, 

published at 76 FR 73830, November 29, 

2011. The OMB Control Number is 

3060–0298. The Commission publishes 

this notice as an announcement of the 

effective date rules requiring OMB 

approval. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the FCC is notifying the public that it 

received OMB approval on May 29, 

2012, for the information collection 

requirements contained in the 

Commission’s rules at §§ 61.3(bbb)(2) 

and 69.3(e)(12). 

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information unless it displays a current, 

valid OMB Control Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act that does not 

display a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number is 

3060–0298. 

The foregoing notice is required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, 

and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

The total annual reporting burdens 

and costs for the respondents are as 

follows: 

Estimated Annual Burden: 7,350 

responses; 20 hours to 50 hours; 215,500 

hours. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, 

and 251(b)(5) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended. 

Needs and Uses: On November 18, 

2011, the Commission adopted the 

Order, FCC 11–161, published at 76 FR 

73830, November 29, 2011, that requires 

or permits incumbent and competitive 

local exchange carriers as part of 

transitioning regulation of interstate and 

intra-state switched access rates and 

reciprocal compensation rates to billand-keep under section 251(b)(5) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, to file tariffs with state 

commissions and the FCC. This 

transition affects different switched 

access rates at specified timeframes and 

establishes an Access Recovery Charge 

by which carriers will be able to assess 

end uses a monthly charge to recover 

some or all of the revenues they are 

permitted to recover resulting from 

reductions in intercarrier compensation 

rates. The information collected through 

a carrier’s tariff is used by the 

Commission and state commissions to 

determine whether services offered are 

just and reasonable as the Act requires. 

The tariffs and any supporting 

documentation are examined in order to 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES