Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 11101 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, 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. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves 

implementation of regulations within 33 

CFR part 165, applicable to safety zones 

on the navigable waterways. This zone 

will temporarily restrict vessels from 

utilizing the southern one-third of 

Mantua Creek Anchorage in order to 

protect the safety of life and property on 

the waters while dredging operations 

are conducted. This rule is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise paragraph (a) of § 165.T05– 

1092 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–1092 Safety Zone Within the 

Lower Portion of Anchorage #9, Mantua 

Creek Anchorage; Paulsboro, NJ. 

* * * * * 

(a) Enforcement period. This rule is 

enforced December 20, 2012, until 

March 1, 2013, unless cancelled earlier 

by the Captain of the Port. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 1, 2013. 

T. C. Wiemers, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain 

of the Port Delaware Bay. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03555 Filed 2–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0393; FRL–9779–5] 

RIN 2060–AQ38 

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of 

Volatile Organic Compounds— 

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

trifluoroprop-1-ene [SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)] 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final 

action to revise the definition of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) for purposes 

of preparing state implementation plans 

(SIPs) to attain the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone 

under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

This direct final action adds trans 1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (also 

known as SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)) to the 

list of compounds excluded from the 

definition of VOCs on the basis that this 

compound makes a negligible 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 16, 

2013 without further notice, unless the 

EPA receives adverse comment by April 

1, 2013. If the EPA receives adverse 

comment, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the final rule 

will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0393, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-rDocket@epamail.epa.gov, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0393. 

• Fax: 202–566–1541, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0393. 

• Mail: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0393, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room: 

3334, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0393. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
11102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0393. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov, 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, 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–2012– 

0393, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air and Radiation 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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule? 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

III. Background 

A. The EPA’s VOC Exemption Policy 

B. Petition to List SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) as 

an Exempt Compound 

C. Premanufacture Notification Review of 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) 

D. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program Review of SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) 

IV. The EPA’s Assessment of the Petition 

A. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone 

B. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health or 

the Environment 

C. Global Warming Potential 

D. Conclusions 

V. Direct Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 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 

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final 

rule? 

The EPA is publishing this direct final 

rule without a prior proposed rule 

because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. 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. However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of this Federal Register, we are 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposed rule to make 

this revision to the definition of VOCs 

if adverse comments are received on 

this direct final rule. We will not 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. For 

further information about commenting 

on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section 

of this document. 

If the EPA receives adverse comment, 

we will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that this direct final rule will not 

take effect. We would address all public 

comments in any subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

direct final rule include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, state and local air 

pollution control agencies that adopt 

and implement regulations to control air 

emissions of VOCs; industries involved 

in the manufacture or use of 

refrigerants, aerosol and non-aerosol 

solvents, and blowing agents for 

insulating foams; and manufacturers of 

refrigeration equipment, hot water 

heaters and waste heat recovery 

equipment. 

III. 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. VOCs are 

those organic compounds of carbon that 

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 less 

and, in some cases, very 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 11103 

1Further explanation of the MIR metric can be 

found in Carter, 1994. 

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, and 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, use of the molar-based 

MIR values compares an equal number 

of molecules of the two compounds. 

Alternatively, use of the mass-based 

MIR values compares an equal mass of 

the two compounds, which involves a 

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 relatively 

recent national VOC emissions 

standards for aerosol coatings (40 CFR 

part 59 subpart E, promulgated in 2008), 

in which the mass fraction of each 

coating component is multiplied by its 

mass-based MIR value. Many older VOC 

regulations contain limits on the mass of 

VOC per volume of product without 

reactivity weighting. An example of this 

latter type of regulation is the EPA’s 

regulation for limiting VOC emissions 

from architectural coatings (40 CFR part 

59 subpart D, promulgated in 1998). 

This type of regulation allows 

substitution of a gram of one VOC for a 

gram of another VOC, without regard to 

the number of moles in a gram or 

individual reactivity values, thus 

making compliance simpler for 

regulated producers and enforcement 

simpler for air agencies. However, the 

fact that regulations are structured to 

limit VOC content by reactivityweighted mass fraction or by mass 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 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 

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. 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 SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) 

as an Exempt Compound 

Honeywell, Inc. submitted a petition 

to the EPA on July 19, 2011, requesting 

that trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene (also known as SolsticeTM


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
11104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2Trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene will 

also be marketed by Honeywell under the trade 

names SolsticeTM N12 Refrigerant, SolsticeTM

Liquid Blowing Agent, SolsticeTM LBA, and 

SolsticeTM Performance Fluid. 

3Of the compounds listed here as competitors, all 

but cyclopentane have already been excluded by 

the EPA from the definition of VOC. 

4The SNAP program approval refers to SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) as a substitute certain ODSs, rather than 

as a substitute for the currently marketed 

compounds with which it will compete. 

5 Information on the SNAP program can be found 

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

snap. 

1233zd(E); CAS number 102687–65–0) 

be exempted from VOC control based on 

its low reactivity relative to ethane.2

The petitioner indicated that SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) may be used in variety of 

applications, including as a solvent in 

aerosol and non-aerosol applications, as 

a blowing agent in insulating foams for 

refrigerators/freezers and hot water 

heaters, and as a refrigerant in 

commercial chillers and waste heat 

recovery (Rankin cycle) systems. In the 

foam blowing applications, SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) will compete with HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc and cyclopentane. 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) will compete with 

HFC–245fa and HFC–134a in refrigerant 

applications and with HCFC–225ca, 

HCFC–225cb, HFC–43–10mee and 

methyl chloroform in aerosol solvent 

applications.3 These applications have 

been approved by the EPA’s Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

Program (see section III.D).4

To support its petition, Honeywell 

submitted several documents, including 

a technical report on the maximum 

incremental reactivity of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) (Carter, 2009); two peerreviewed journal articles on its 

atmospheric chemistry, reaction rates, 

atmospheric lifetimes and ozone 

depletion potentials (Patten and 

Wuebbles, 2010; Sulbaek Anderson et 

al., 2008); a technical report on ozone 

depletion (Wang et al., 2011); a 

technical report on its global warming 

potential (GWP) (Wang et al., 2012); and 

a summary of toxicity studies for 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) (Honeywell, 2011). 

All of these have been added to the 

docket for this action. In summarizing 

the content of these documents, 

Honeywell states that SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) has low ozone reactivity, low 

GWP, low contribution to ozone 

depletion and low toxicity, and that the 

use of the compound avoids the fire risk 

of using cyclopentane as a foam blowing 

agent. 

C. Premanufacture Notification Review 

of SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) 

The Toxics Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) requires the EPA to assess and 

prevent any unreasonable risks to 

human health and the environment 

before a new chemical substance is 

introduced into commerce. Section 5 of 

TSCA requires manufacturers and 

importers to notify the EPA before 

manufacturing or importing a new 

chemical substance. Under the 

Premanufacture Notification (PMN) 

Review Process, the EPA then performs 

a risk assessment on the new chemical 

substance to determine if an 

unreasonable risk may, or will, be 

presented by the expected use of the 

new substance. Finally, the EPA makes 

risk management decisions and takes 

action to control any unreasonable risks 

posed by new chemical substances. 

Under TSCA, the EPA is allowed 90 

days to review each substance, 

extendable to 180 days under certain 

conditions. 

As a new chemical not yet introduced 

into commerce, SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) 

has recently completed a PMN review 

on January 30, 2012. 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 the substance. Based on this finding, 

the EPA did not find it necessary to take 

any actions to prevent unreasonable risk 

under TSCA. Once the EPA is informed 

that production of the compound has 

started, it will be added to the TSCA 

inventory of chemical substances that 

are produced or imported in the U.S. 

D. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program Review of SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) 

The SNAP program is the EPA’s 

program to evaluate and regulate 

substitutes for the ozone-depleting 

substances (ODSs) 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 ozonedepleting substances.5 The EPA’s SNAP 

program has evaluated the use of 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E). The review 

considered information on the effects, if 

any, of the compound on stratospheric 

ozone depletion, tropospheric ozone, 

ecosystem effects from deposition and 

toxicity to humans. On August 10, 2012, 

the SNAP program published a 

determination finding SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) acceptable for use as a foam 

blowing agent for certain products, as a 

refrigerant in new centrifugal chillers 

and as an aerosol solvent. 77 FR 47768. 

However, the SNAP program is 

currently still reviewing SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) for use as a refrigerant for 

non-mechanical heat transfer and as a 

solvent for cleaning or for adhesives and 

coatings. Thus, at this time, it would be 

a violation of the CAA and the SNAP 

program regulations for any person to 

introduce SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) into 

interstate commerce for use in any of 

these end uses regulated by the SNAP 

program. 

IV. The EPA’s Assessment of the 

Petition 

The EPA is taking direct final action 

to approve the petition for exemption of 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) from the definition 

of VOC. This action is consistent with 

the Interim Guidance based on the three 

reactivity metric values for SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) compared to the 

corresponding values for ethane; our 

inability in the Premanufacture 

Notification Review Program to find any 

unreasonable risks to human health or 

the environment from the expected use 

of the substance; our finding in the 

SNAP program review of this chemical 

that use of this chemical in currently 

allowed applications does not pose a 

significant risk to human health or the 

environment; and our confidence that 

the SNAP program will prevent the use 

of this chemical in any additional 

applications where such use would pose 

a significant risk to human health or the 

environment. We also believe that the 

much lower GWP of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) relative to one of the 

chemicals it can replace, as described in 

section IV.C, is an additional reason to 

approve the VOC exemption for this 

chemical and thus encourage its use, 

given that applying the Interim 

Guidance itself supports such approval. 

A. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone 

The reaction rate of ethane with OH 

is 2.4 × 10¥13 cm3/molecule-sec. The 

corresponding reaction rate of 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) for reaction with 

OH radical (kOH) has been measured to 

be 4.40 × 10¥13 cm3/molecule-sec 

(Sulbaek Andersen et al., 2008); other 

reactions with ozone and nitrate radical 

were negligibly small. The difference 

between the two kOH values is not 

significant; but still, SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) is above the ethane 

benchmark. 

The overall atmospheric reactivity of 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) was studied in an 

experimental smog chamber and the 

chemical mechanism derived from this 

study was used to model the complete 

formation of ozone for an entire single 

day under ‘‘realistic’’ atmospheric 

conditions (Carter, 2009). Using the 

standard 39-city array of input 

conditions, Carter calculated a MIR 

value of 0.040 g O3/g VOC for SolsticeTM


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 11105 

6 In this action as in past exemption actions, the 

EPA is focusing on the MIR under ‘‘averaged 

conditions.’’ Carter also calculated a MIR value of 

0.042 g O3/g VOC for SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) for the 

average of all city-specific scenarios, versus the 

corresponding MIR of 0.264 g O3/g VOC for ethane. 

There were no individual city-specific scenarios 

where SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) was calculated to have 

a higher MIR than ethane. 

7The SNAP program approval refers to SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) as a substitute certain ODSs, rather than 

as a substitute for the currently marketed 

compounds with which it will compete. 

8HCFC–225ca and HCFC–225cb are banned as of 

January 1, 2015, and therefore have not been 

included in this comparison. 

1233zd(E) for ‘‘averaged conditions,’’ 

versus 0.28 g O3/g VOC for ethane.6

Table 1 presents the three reactivity 

metrics for SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) as they 

compare to ethane. 

TABLE 1—REACTIVITIES OF ETHANE AND SOLSTICETM 1233ZD(E) 

Compound 

kOH

(cm3/moleculesec) 

Maximum incremental reactivity 

(MIR) 

(g O3/mole VOC) 

Maximum incremental reactivity 

(MIR) 

(g O3/g VOC) 

Ethane ........................................................................................................................ 2.4 × 10¥13 8.4 0.28 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) ................................................................................................. 4.40 × 10¥13 5.22 0.040 

Notes: 

1. kOH value for ethane is from Atkinson et al., 2006 (page 3626). 

2. kOH value for SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is from Sulbaek Andersen et al., 2008. 

3. Mass-based MIR value (g O3/g VOC) of ethane is from Carter, 2010 (page 178). The value of 0.28 is slightly different than the value of 

0.268 reported in Carter, 2009. The EPA does not consider this slight difference to be material. 

4. Mass-based MIR value of SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is from Carter, 2009. 

5. Molar-based MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were calculated from the mass-based MIR (g O3/g VOC) values using the number of moles per 

gram of the relevant organic compound. 

From the data in Table 1, it can be 

seen that SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) has a 

higher kOH value than ethane, meaning 

that it initially reacts more quickly in 

the atmosphere than ethane. However, a 

molecule of SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is less 

reactive than a molecule of ethane in 

terms of complete ozone forming 

activity as shown by the molar-based 

MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values. Also, a 

gram of SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) has a 

lower MIR value than a gram of ethane. 

Thus, under the Interim Guidance 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is eligible to be 

exempted from the definition of VOC, 

on the basis of both mass-based and 

molar-based MIR. 

According to the petitioner, in the 

foam blowing applications, SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) will compete with HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc and cyclopentane. 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) will compete with 

HFC–245fa and HFC–134a in refrigerant 

applications and with HCFC–225ca, 

HCFC–225cb, HFC–43–10mee and 

methyl chloroform in aerosol solvent 

applications. These applications have 

been approved by the EPA’s SNAP 

Program (see section III.D).7 The EPA 

believes that market penetration by 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is more likely in 

foam blowing and refrigeration 

applications than in aerosol solvent 

applications. Given these known 

prospects for substitution, it is 

informative to compare the ozone 

reactivity metric values for SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) to the values for HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, cyclopentane, methyl 

chloroform and HFC–134a, although the 

Interim Guidance does not contemplate 

such comparisons among substitutes in 

every case.8 Table 2 contains the ozone 

metrics for SolsticeTM 1233zd(E), these 

five chemicals and ethane. The table 

shows that SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is 

lower than cyclopentane on all three 

reactivity metrics. Thus, it is reasonable 

to conclude that when SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) is substituted for 

cyclopentane, less ozone will result. 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) has higher values 

on all three metrics than the other 

compounds listed in Table 2, but it 

should be noted that the kOH and MIR 

values for other compounds are 

extremely low even compared to those 

of ethane. 

TABLE 2—REACTIVITIES OF SOLSTICETM 1233ZD(E) AND FIVE COMPOUNDS FOR WHICH IT MAY SUBSTITUTE

Compound 

kOH

(cm3/moleculesec) 

Maximum incremental reactivity 

(MIR) 

(g O3/mole VOC) 

Maximum incremental reactivity 

(MIR) 

(g O3/g VOC) 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) ................................................................................................. 4.40 × 10¥13 5.22 0.040 

HFC–245fa ................................................................................................................. 7.24 × 10¥15 0.106 0.0008 

HFC–365mfc .............................................................................................................. 7.12 × 10¥15 0.089 0.0006 

Cyclopentane ............................................................................................................. 5.02 × 10¥12 167 2.39 

Methyl Chloroform ..................................................................................................... 1.24 × 10¥14 0.654 0.0049 

HFC–134a .................................................................................................................. 4.59 × 10¥15 0.071 0.0007 

Ethane ........................................................................................................................ 2.4 × 10¥13 8.4 0.28 

Notes: 

1. kOH value for cyclopentane is from Carter, 2010 (page 211). 

2. kOH value for HFC–245fa is from Carter, 2010 (page 228). 

3. kOH value for HFC–365mfc is from Carter, 2010 (page 229). 

4. kOH value for methyl chloroform is from Carter, 2010 (page 228). 

5. kOH value for HFC–134a is from Carter, 2010 (page 228). 

6. Mass-based MIR value (g O3/g VOC) of cyclopentane is from Carter, 2010 (page 178). 

7. Mass-based MIR value of HFC–245fa is from Carter, 2010 (page 202). 

8. Mass-based MIR value of HFC–365mfc is from Carter, 2010 (page 202). 

9. Mass-based MIR value of methyl chloroform is from Carter, 2010 (page 202). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
11106 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

10. Mass-based MIR value of HFC–134a is from Carter, 2010 (page 202). 

11. Molar-based MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were calculated from the mass-based MIR (g O3/g VOC) values using the number of moles per 

gram of the relevant organic compound. 

As stated in section IV.C, SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) has a very low GWP. Global 

warming is predicted to exacerbate high 

ozone concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2009; 

Jacob and Winner, 2009), so 

directionally the lower GWP of 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) compared to HFC– 

245fa will also help reduce tropospheric 

ozone concentrations. 

In summary, the EPA believes that 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) qualifies as 

negligibly reactive with respect to its 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation. 

B. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health 

or the Environment 

Stratospheric Ozone Depletion—The 

SNAP program review of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) described in section III.D 

considered available information 

regarding ozone depletion and 

concluded that from a stratospheric 

ozone depletion perspective, the 

compound is acceptable as a 

replacement for the ozone-depleting 

substances CFC–11 and HCFC–123 for 

use in certain refrigerant applications, a 

replacement for CFC–11 and HCFC 141b 

in foam blowing and a replacement for 

CFC–113, methyl chloroform, HCFC– 

141b, and HCFC–225ca, HCFC–225cb 

and blends thereof for use in aerosol 

solvent applications. Estimates of 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)’s potential to 

deplete the ozone layer found that even 

with worst case estimates of emissions 

which assume that this compound 

would substitute for all compounds it 

could replace, the impact on global 

atmospheric ozone abundance would be 

statistically insignificant. The emissions 

of SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) in its refrigerant 

application will be limited given it is 

subject to the venting prohibition under 

section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and the 

EPA’s implementing regulations 

codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1). 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) has an ozonedepleting potential (ODP) of 0.00024 to 

0.00034. This is roughly one order of 

magnitude higher than the ODPs of 

HFCs used in substitute refrigerants and 

foam blowing agents which are 

considered to have zero ODP, including 

HFC–134a and HFC–125. SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)’s ODP is well below that of 

CFC–11, HCFC–123 and HCFC–141b 

(with ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 1.0), 

the ODSs which it replaces in 

refrigerants and foam blowing 

applications. The ODP of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) is comparable to the ODPs of 

trans-1,2-dichloroethylene and 

trichloroethylene and an order of 

magnitude lower than the ODP of 

perchloroethylene, other substitutes in 

the aerosol solvents end use that are not 

regulated as ODSs. SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)’s ODP is well below those of 

methyl chloroform, CFC–113, HCFC– 

141b, HCFC–225ca and HCFC–225cb 

(with ODPs ranging from 0.02 to 0.85), 

the ODSs it replaces in aerosol solvents. 

Health and Environmental Risks—As 

described in section III.C, SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) has recently completed a 

PMN review on January 30, 2012. 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 the substance. Based on this 

finding, the EPA did not find it 

necessary to take any actions to prevent 

unreasonable risk under TSCA. 

The SNAP program review of 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) described the 

potential health effects of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) as being common to many 

refrigerants, including many of those 

already listed as acceptable under 

SNAP. Potential health effects of this 

substitute include serious eye irritation, 

skin irritation and frostbite. The EPA 

anticipates that users will be able to 

meet the manufacturer’s recommended 

workplace exposure limit and address 

potential health risks by following 

requirements and recommendations in 

the material safety data sheet and in any 

other safety precautions common to the 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

industry and the foam blowing industry. 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is not 

flammable. 

Sulbaek Andersen et al., 2008, states 

that SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) is not 

expected to undergo wet or dry 

deposition to an appreciable extent. 

C. Global Warming Potential 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) has a 100-yr 

GWP reported as 4.7 to 7 and an 

atmospheric lifetime of approximately 

26 to 31 days or less. SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)’s GWP of 4.7 to 7 is lower 

than or comparable to that of other 

acceptable substitutes for ODSs in the 

same end uses. The notice for the EPA’s 

determination under the SNAP program 

provides specific GWP comparisons to 

these other acceptable substitutes. 77 FR 

47768, August 10, 2012. SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) is expected to compete 

directly in the foam blowing application 

market with the ODS-substitutes HFC– 

245fa (GWP of 1030) and HFC–365mfc 

(GWP of 794) which have much higher 

GWPs than that for SolsticeTM

1233zd(E). It will also compete with 

cyclopentane which has a GWP of less 

than 0.1 (UNEP, 1994) which is lower 

than for SolsticeTM 1233zd(E). Because 

of the much higher GWPs of HFC–245fa 

and HFC–365mfc, the net global 

warming effect of increased use of 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) in place of HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc and cyclopentane 

will depend on the pattern of 

substitutions that takes place in the 

future, but is likely to be advantageous 

as long as the amounts of displaced 

HFC–245fa and HFC–365mfc are not 

much less than the amount of displaced 

cyclopentane. 

D. Conclusions 

In summary, the EPA finds that 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) qualifies as 

negligibly reactive with respect to its 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation. In addition, we believe that 

risks not related to tropospheric ozone 

associated with currently allowed uses 

of the chemical are acceptable, and that 

any new or increased risk from potential 

new uses are adequately addressed by 

other existing programs and policies, 

specifically the SNAP program. We also 

believe that the comparable or lower 

global warming potential of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) compared to other acceptable 

substitutes and in particular compared 

to HFC–245fa, as described in section 

IV.C, is an additional reason to approve 

the SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) petition given 

that applying the Interim Guidance 

itself supports such approval. 

V. Direct Final Action 

The EPA is responding to the petition 

by revising its definition of VOC at 40 

CFR 51.100(s) to add SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) to the list of compounds that 

are exempt from the regulatory 

definition of VOC because they are 

negligibly reactive, on the basis that it 

is less reactive than ethane on both a 

mass and a molar MIR basis. If an entity 

uses or produces any of this compound 

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 this 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 11107 

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 this 

compound is considered a VOC 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, no state may take credit for 

controlling this compound in its ozone 

control strategy. 

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’’ 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 

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 proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of 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.); (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 today’s direct final rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 USC 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. This direct 

final rule removes SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) 

from the definition of VOCs and thereby 

relieves users of the compound from 

requirements to control emissions of the 

compound. We have therefore 

concluded that today’s direct final rule 

will relieve regulatory burden for all 

affected 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. This 

direct final rule removes SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) from the definition of VOCs 

and thereby relieves users of the 

compound from requirements to control 

emissions of the compound. 

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 direct final 

rule removes SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) from 

the definition of VOCs and thereby 

relieves users from requirements to 

control emissions of the compound. 

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 would 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. This action’s 

health and risk assessments are 

contained in section IV.B. of this 

preamble and within the docket for this 

rulemaking. While this direct 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 SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
11108 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 32 / Friday, February 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. This rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

the EPA has not considered 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 

direct 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 the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The 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 

May 16, 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 SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) 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. 

References 

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. 

Carter, William P.L. (1994) Development of 

ozone reactivity scales for volatile 

organic compositions, Journal of the Air 

& Waste Management Association, Vol. 

44, 881–899, July 1994. 

Carter, William P.L. (2009) Investigation of 

atmospheric ozone impacts of trans 1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene, Final 

Report. June 8, 2009. http:// 

www.cert.ucr.edu/∼carter/pubs/ 

ZDErept.pdf. 

Carter, William P.L. (2010) Development of 

the SAPRC–07 chemical mechanism and 

updated ozone reactivity scales, Report 

to the California Air Resources Board, 

Revised January 27, 2010. http:// 

www.engr.ucr.edu/∼carter/SAPRC/ 

saprc07.pdf. 

Honeywell (2011), Summary of toxicity 

information on 1233zd(E), CAS Number: 

102687–65–0, July 6, 2011. 

Jacob, Daniel J. and Winner, D.A. (2009) 

Effect of climate change on air quality, 

Atmospheric Environment, 43:51–63, 

2009. 

Patten, K.O. and Wuebbles, D.J. (2010) 

Atmospheric lifetimes and Ozone 

Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoropropylene and trans-1,2- 

dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional 

model. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 10867– 

10874, 2010. 

Sulbaek Andersen, M.P., Nilsson, E.J.K., 

Nielsen, O.J., Johnson, M.S., Hurley, 

M.D., Walllington, T.J. (2008) 

Atmospheric chemistry of transCF3CH=CHCl: Kinetics of the gas-phase 

reactions with Cl atoms, OH radical, and 

O3. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: 

Chemistry, 92–97, 1999. 

United Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP) (1994) Cyclopentane: A blowing 

agent for polyurethane foams for 

insulation in domestic refrigeratorfreezers, OzoneAction Information 

Clearing House, October 1994. 

U.S. EPA (1977) Recommended policy on 

control of volatile organic compounds. 

42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977. 

U.S. EPA (2005) Interim guidance on control 

of volatile organic compounds in ozone 

state implementation plans. 70 FR 

54046–54051, September 15, 2005. 

U.S. EPA (2009) Assessment of the impacts 

of global change on regional U.S. air 

quality: A synthesis of climate change 

impacts on ground-level ozone (An 

interim report of the U.S. EPA Global 

Change Research Program). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–07/094F, 

2009. 

Wang, Dong., Olsen, S. and Wuebbles, D. 

(2011) Preliminary report: Analyses of 

tCFP’s potential impact on atmospheric 

ozone, 2011. http://www.honeywellsolsticelba.com/wp-content/uploads/ 

2011/09/Analysis-of-tCFP-blowingagents-potential-impact-on-atmosphericozone-Wuebbles-2011.pdf. 

Wang, Dong., Olsen, S. and Wuebbles, D. 

(2012) Three-dimensional model 

evaluation of the global warming 

potentials for tCFP, 2012. 

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: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

Subpart F—Procedural Requirements 

■ 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 a semi-colon and the words ‘‘trans 

1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene; and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03061 Filed 2–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES