Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 9823 

Dated: February 7, 2013. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03210 Filed 2–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0089; FRL–9779–3] 

RIN 2060–AO17 

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of 

Volatile Organic Compounds— 

Exclusion of a Group of Four 

Hydrofluoropolyethers (HFPEs) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action revises the 

definition of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). This revision adds four 

chemical compounds to the list of 

compounds excluded from the 

definition of VOC on the basis that each 

of these compounds makes a negligible 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation. These compounds consist of 

four hydrofluoropolyethers (HFPEs) 

which are identified as HCF2OCF2H 

(also known as HFE–134), 

HCF2OCF2OCF2H (also known as HFE– 

236cal2), HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also 

known as HFE–338pcc13), and 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also known 

as H-Galden 1040X or H-Galden ZT 130 

(or 150 or 180)). If an entity uses or 

produces any of these four HFPE 

compounds (these being in the family of 

products known by the trade name HGalden) and is subject to the EPA 

regulations limiting the use of VOC in 

a product, limiting the VOC emissions 

from a facility, or otherwise controlling 

the use of VOC for purposes related to 

attaining the ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), then the 

compound will not be counted as a VOC 

in determining whether these regulatory 

obligations have been met. This action 

may also affect whether any of these 

compounds is considered a VOC for 

state regulatory purposes, depending on 

whether the state relies on the EPA’s 

definition of VOC. In addition, the EPA 

is making certain technical corrections 

to the current list of exempt 

compounds. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

March 14, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0089. 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–2007– 

0089, 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 Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 

566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Sanders, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Policy Division, State and Local 

Programs Group, Mail Code (C539–01), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711; 

telephone (919) 541–3356 or fax (919) 

541–0824; and 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 listed in 

the following table involved in the 

manufacture or use of fire suppressants 

and specialized refrigerants in 

secondary loop refrigeration systems for 

heat transfer. 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 

these four HFPEs from the regulatory 

definition of VOC. 

This final rule is applicable to all 

manufacturers, distributors and users of 

these chemical compounds as identified 

in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES

Industry 

group SIC a NAICSb

Fire Suppression 2899 325998, 423990 

Refrigerants .. 2869, 3585 

238220, 

336111 

aStandard Industrial Classification. 

b North American Industry Classification 

System. 

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. Proposed Action 

A. The EPA’s VOC Exemption Policy 

B. Petition to List the Following 

Compounds as Exempt: HCF2OCF2H 

(HFE 134), HCF2OCF2OCF2H (HFE– 

236cal2), HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (HFE– 

338pcc13), and 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (H-Galden 

1040X and H-Galden ZT 130 (or 150 or 

180)) 

C. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health or 

the Environment 

D. Conclusion 

III. Public Comments 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning 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 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9824 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Further explanation of the MIR metric can be 

found in: W. P. L. Carter, ‘‘Development of Ozone 

Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic 

Compositions,’’ Journal of the Air & Waste 

Management Association, Vol. 44, 881–899, July 

1994. 

II. Proposed Action 

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. 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 as 

being excluded from the definition of 

VOC (40 CFR 51.100(s)). 

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 set forth 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 regulatory 

definition of VOC. Compounds that are 

more reactive than ethane continue to 

be considered VOCs 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 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 exclusions of negligibly 

reactive compounds from the regulatory 

definition of VOC. The kOH metric is 

inherently a molar-based comparison, 

i.e., it measures the rate at which 

molecules react. 

The MIR, both by mole and by mass, 

is 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, not merely the first 

reaction step. 1

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-based 

MIR values considers an equal number 

of molecules of the two compounds. 

Alternatively, using the mass-based 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-based 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 molarbased. By contrast, the mass-based 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 (40 CFR part 59 subpart E). 

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 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 molecular weights 

higher than that of ethane, use of the 

mass basis results in more VOCs being 

classified as less reactive than ethane 

than use of the molar basis. 

B. Petition To List the Following 

Compounds as Exempt: HCF2OCF2H 

(HFE 134), HCF2OCF2OCF2H (HFE– 

236cal2), HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (HFE– 

338pcc13), and 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (H-Galden 

1040X and H-Galden ZT 130 (or 150 or 

180)) 

On February 10, 2005, Solvay Solexis, 

Incorporated submitted to the EPA a 

petition requesting that four compounds 

in the family of products known by the 

trade name H-Galden be added to the 

list of compounds that are considered to 

be negligibly reactive in the definition 

of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). These four 

compounds—HCF2OCF2H (HFE–134), 

HCF2OCF2OCF2H (HFE–236cal2), 

HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (HFE–338pcc13), 

and HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (HGalden 1040X and H-Galden ZT 130 (or 

150 or 180))—can be used in some heat 

transfer applications (as refrigerants) 

and as fire suppressants. 

With respect to the photochemical 

reactivity of the H-Galden compounds, 

Solvay Solexis, Incorporated provided 

information on the photochemical 

reactivity of its chemical compounds as 

measured by each compound’s kOH rate 

constant. Measurements of the reaction 

rate of HCF2OCF2H (HFE–134) with OH 

have been estimated at 298 K to be 2.3 

×10¥15 (cm3/molecule-sec). This rate 

constant is highly temperature 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 9825 

2Although the petition listed H-Galden 1040X as 

having a kOH value of 4.9×0¥15 (cm3/molecule-sec) 

and the preamble to the proposed rule contained 

this value, EPA has found the actual value to be 

4.6×0¥15 (cm3/molecule-sec) according to the 

petitioner’s reference (2) in the following paragraph. 

3 Information on the SNAP program can be found 

on the following Web page: www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap. 

dependent and decreases at lower 

temperatures. The calculated reaction 

rates for the three additional HFPEs as 

submitted by Solvay Solexis are 

2.4×0¥15 (cm3/molecule-sec) for HFE– 

236cal2, 4.7×0¥15 (cm3/molecule-sec) 

for HFE–338pcc13, and 4.9×0¥15 (cm3/ 

molecule-sec) for H-Galden 1040X.2 The 

kOH values for these four HFPEs are 

significantly lower than the reaction rate 

for ethane which has a kOH value of 

2.4×0¥13 (cm3/molecule-sec) at 298 K. 

The scientific information that the 

petitioner submitted in support of the 

petition has been added to the docket 

for this rulemaking. This docketed 

information includes journal articles 

where the rate constant values can be 

found. Solvay Solexis, Incorporated 

submitted the following articles in 

support of its petition: (1) 

‘‘Tropospheric Degradation Products of 

Novel Hydrofluoropolyethers,’’ Tuazon, 

Environmental Science & Technology, 

University of California, Riverside, May 

1997; (2) ‘‘Hydrofluoropolyethers,’’ 

Marchionni, Silvani, Fontana, 

Malinverno, Visca, Journal of Fluorine 

Chemistry, Ausimont SpA, R & D 

Centre, 1999; and (3) ‘‘Toxicological 

Profile of Hydrofluoropolyethers,’’ 

Malinverno, Colombo, Visca, Regulatory 

Toxicology and Pharmacology, 

December, 2004. 

Table 2 summarizes the information 

provided by the petitioner regarding the 

photochemical reactivity of the 

compounds under consideration. The 

data submitted by the petitioner support 

the contention that the reactivity of 

these compounds, with respect to 

reaction with the OH radical in the 

atmosphere, is lower than that of 

ethane. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF REACTION RATES WITH OH (KOH) REACTION RATE CONSTANT COMPARED TO ETHANE

Chemical formula CAS Number Name 

kOH

(cm3/(moleculesec)) 

kOH ratio 

relative to 

ethane 

C2H6 ....................................................................................... 74–84–0 Ethane ................................... 2.4 × 10¥13 1.00 

HCF2OCF2H ........................................................................... 1691–17–4 HFE–134 ............................... 2.3 × 10¥15 0.01 

HCF2OCF2OCF2H .................................................................. 78522–47–1 HFE–236ca12 ........................ 2.4 × 10¥15 0.01 

HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H ........................................................... 188690–78–0 HFE–338pcc13 ...................... 4.7 × 10¥15 0.02 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H .................................................. 188690–77–9 H-Galden 1040X .................... 4.6 × 10¥15 0.02 

Notes: 

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

J. A., Rossi, M. J., and Troe J. (2006) Evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for atmospheric chemistry: Volume II—gas phase reactions of 

organic species. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6, 3625–4055. 

2. kOH values for the four compounds being exempted are from: G. Marchionni, R. Silvani, G. Fontana, G. Malinverno, M. Visca, 

‘‘Hydrofluoropolyethers.’’ Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, 95 (1999) 41–50. 

C. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health 

or the Environment 

Information in the Solvay Solexis, 

Incorporated petition and its reference 

material indicates that the four HFPEs 

have low acute toxicity, no irritation or 

skin sensitization, and no detectable 

genotoxic activity in vitro or in vivo. 

The HFPEs show a similarly low 

potential for developmental toxicity. 

This toxicity information has been 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Because HFPEs do not contain 

chlorine or bromine, these compounds 

do not contribute to the depletion of the 

ozone layer and have ozone depletion 

potential values of zero. In both the 

refrigeration and fire suppressant end 

uses, these HFPEs would be used as 

substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances (ODS). All ODS substitutes 

must undergo review by the EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) Program. The SNAP Program is 

EPA’s program to evaluate and regulate 

substitutes for the ozone-depleting 

chemicals that are being phased out 

under the stratospheric ozone protection 

provisions of the CAA. In section 612(c) 

of the CAA, the agency is authorized to 

identify and publish lists of acceptable 

and unacceptable substitutes for class I 

or class II ozone-depleting substances.3

The EPA’s SNAP program has evaluated 

the use of these four H-Galden HFPEs 

and found acceptable their use as fire 

suppressants in non-residential 

applications, in place of Halon 1211 (68 

FR 4004, January 27, 2003). However, 

the SNAP program has not approved HGalden HFPEs for certain other uses 

(i.e., solvent, aerosol propellant, foam 

blowing, and refrigeration). There 

currently is no submission pending 

review to list these substances as 

substitutes in other uses. Thus, at this 

time, it would be a violation of the CAA 

and the SNAP program regulations for 

any person to introduce H-Galden 

HFPEs into interstate commerce for use 

in other end uses regulated by the SNAP 

program. H-Galden HFPEs may be used 

in non-mechanical heat transfer as a 

secondary refrigerant in secondary-loop 

refrigeration systems without approval 

from SNAP; the EPA does not list, and 

does not currently require notification 

for, compounds that are used only as a 

secondary fluid in secondary-loop 

refrigeration systems (62 FR 10702; 

March 10, 1997). 

Table 3 shows the 20 and 100 year 

global warning potentials (GWPs) of 

these four compounds relative to carbon 

dioxide (CO2) as reported by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. These GWP–100 levels are 

comparable to mid-range levels 

associated with some chemical 

compounds that have previously been 

exempted from the VOC definition, 

which range from 23 to 12,000. In the 

January 27, 2003, SNAP rule, the EPA 

noted that despite their relatively high 

GWP values, the use of H Galden HFPEs 

was anticipated to have a smaller to 

comparable impact on global warming 

than the hydrofluorocarbons historically 

used in the same fire suppression 

application. Overall, the EPA concluded 

that H Galden HFPEs reduce risk 

compared to halon 1211, the ODS they 

replace. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9826 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS RELATIVE TO CO2 OVER 20 AND 100 YEARS FOR THE FOUR

COMPOUNDS BEING CONSIDERED FOR VOC EXEMPTIONS. 

Chemical formula CAS Number Name 

GWP 

relative to CO2

(20 years)1

GWP 

relative to CO2

(100 years) 

HCF2OCF2H .................................................................. 1691–17–4 HFE–134 .......................................... 12200 6320 

HCF2OCF2OCF2H ......................................................... 78522–47–1 HFE–236ca12 .................................. 8000 2800 

HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H ................................................... 188690–78–0 HFE–338pcc13 ................................ 5100 1500 

2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H ................................................. 188690–77–9 H-Galden 1040X .............................. 6320 1870 

CO2 ................................................................................ 124–38–9 Carbon dioxide ................................. 1 1 

Note: 

1. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, DC Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, 

G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

Having considered the available 

information on the likelihood of risk to 

human health or the environment from 

increased use of the chemicals 

considered here, we believe that current 

regulation of these compounds under 

other EPA programs adequately protects 

human health and the environment. 

D. Conclusion 

For all four compounds, the EPA 

proposed that (a) these chemicals 

qualify as negligibly reactive with 

respect to their contribution to 

tropospheric ozone formation, and (b) 

any non-tropospheric ozone-related 

risks associated with potential increased 

use are adequately addressed by other 

existing programs and policies. 

III. Public Comments 

We received no comments from the 

public. 

IV. Final Action 

The EPA is amending its definition of 

VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude a 

group of four HFPE’s identified as 

HCF2OCF2H (known as HFE–134), 

HCF2OCF2OCF2H (known as HFE– 

236cal2), HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (known 

as HFE–338pcc13), and 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (known as HGalden 1040X and also H-Galden ZT 

130 (or 150 or 180)) as VOCs for ozone 

state implementation plans (SIP) and 

ozone control purposes. Consistent with 

the Interim Guidance, the EPA’s final 

action on the petition is based on a 

consideration of the contribution that 

each chemical makes to tropospheric 

ozone formation based on a comparison 

of reactivity metrics and on our 

assessment that existing programs or 

policies already adequately address the 

possibility that granting the petition 

would pose a significant risk to human 

health or the environment. 

If an entity uses or produces any of 

these four HFPE compounds and is 

subject to the EPA regulations limiting 

the use of VOC in a product, limiting 

the VOC emissions from a facility, or 

otherwise controlling the use of VOC for 

purposes related to attaining the ozone 

NAAQS, then the compound will not be 

counted as a VOC in determining 

whether these regulatory obligations 

have been met. Emissions of this 

compound will not be considered in 

determining whether a proposed new or 

modified source triggers the 

applicability of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

requirements, in areas where the PSD 

program is implemented by the EPA or 

a delegated state, local or tribal agency. 

This action may also affect whether any 

of these four HFPE compounds are 

considered as VOCs for state regulatory 

purposes to reduce ozone formation, if 

a state relies on the EPA’s definition of 

VOC. States are not obligated to exclude 

from control as a VOC those compounds 

that the EPA has found to be negligibly 

reactive. However, states may not take 

credit for controlling these compounds 

in their ozone control strategies. 

The EPA is also amending its 

definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to 

make for clarity technical corrections to 

the current list of exempt compounds at 

40 CFR 51.100(s)(1) by replacing several 

commas separating individual 

compounds with semicolons and by 

removing the erroneous ‘‘(1)’’ notation 

in ‘‘(1) 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3- 

methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane 

(HFE–7300)’’ so that it reads 

‘‘1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3- 

methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane 

(HFE–7300).’’ 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

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 

requirements. 

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 

final rule 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.); 

(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-forprofit 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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 9827 

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 final action 

addresses the exemption of a set of 

chemical compounds 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 Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in EO 12866. This 

action’s health and risk assessments are 

contained in section II.C. of this 

preamble and within the docket for this 

rulemaking. 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 the 

chemical compound may affect 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

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, with explanations when the 

agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. This final rulemaking 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 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 does 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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

will be effective on March 14, 2013. 

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 HCF2OCF2H 

(known as HFE–134), HCF2OCF2OCF2H 

(known as HFE–236cal2), 

HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (known as HFE– 

338pcc13), and 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (known as HGalden 1040X and also H-Galden ZT 

130 (or 150 or 180)) 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: February 4, 2013. 

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: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
9828 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 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 ‘‘methyl acetate, 

1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxypropane (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) 

1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3- 

methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane 

(HFE–7300); propylene carbonate; 

dimethyl carbonate; trans-1,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoropropene; and perfluorocarbon 

compounds which fall into these 

classes:’’ and adding in their place the 

words ‘‘methyl acetate; 1,1,1,2,2,3,3- 

heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane (nC3F7OCH3, HFE–7000); 3-ethoxy1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-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); 

HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (H-Galden 

1040x or H-Galden ZT 130 (or 150 or 

180)); and perfluorocarbon compounds 

which fall into these classes:’’. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03057 Filed 2–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0648; FRL–9728–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County: 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2008 

Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS 

Correction 

■ In rule document 2012–22975 

beginning on page 58032 in the issue of 

Wednesday, September 19, 2012, make 

the following corrections: 

§ 52.1620 [Corrected] 

Due to an error in the EPA approval 

date, the table entitled ‘‘EPA– 

APPROVED ALBUQUERQUE/ 

BERNALILLO COUNTY, NM 

REGULATIONS’’ on pages 58034 and 

58035 is being reprinted in its entirety 

to read as follows: 

EPA-APPROVED ALBUQUERQUE/BERNALILLO COUNTY, NM REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environment Protection, Chapter 11—Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality 

Control Board 

*******

Part 8 (20.11.8 NMAC) ........... Ambient Air Quality Standards.8/12/2009 September 19, 2012, [Insert 

FR page number where 

document begins].

*******

Part 61 (20.11.61 NMAC) ....... Prevention of Significant Deterioration.1/10/2011 September 19, 2012, [Insert 

FR page number where 

document begins].

*******

[FR Doc. C1–2012–22975 Filed 2–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. CDC–2012–0002] 

RIN 0920–AA47 

Establishment of User Fees for 

Filovirus Testing of Nonhuman Primate 

Liver Samples 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), located 

within the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), is amending 

regulations for the importation of live 

nonhuman primates (NHPs) by 

establishing a user fee for filovirus 

testing of all nonhuman primates that 

die during the HHS/CDC-required 31- 

day quarantine period for any reason 

other than trauma. We are amending the 

regulations to establish a filovirus 

testing service at HHS/CDC, because 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES