Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds-Exclusion of trans, 11101-11108 [2013-03061]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11101-11108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03061]


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

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 
[Solstice\TM\ 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-r-Docket@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

[[Page 11102]]

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 https://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 Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) as an Exempt Compound
    C. Premanufacture Notification Review of Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E)
    D. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Review of 
Solstice\TM\ 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

[[Page 11103]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Further explanation of the MIR metric can be found in 
Carter, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
molar-based. 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 
reactivity-weighted 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

[[Page 11104]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Trans 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.
    \3\ Of the compounds listed here as competitors, all but 
cyclopentane have already been excluded by the EPA from the 
definition of VOC.
    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support its petition, Honeywell submitted several documents, 
including a technical report on the maximum incremental reactivity of 
SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) (Carter, 2009); two peer-reviewed 
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 ozone-depleting 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Information on the SNAP program can be found on the 
following Web page: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 x 10-13 
cm\3\/molecule-sec. The corresponding reaction rate of Solstice\TM\ 
1233zd(E) for reaction with OH radical (kOH) has been 
measured to be 4.40 x 10-13 cm\3\/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, Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) is above 
the ethane benchmark.
    The overall atmospheric reactivity of Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\

[[Page 11105]]

1233zd(E) for ``averaged conditions,'' versus 0.28 g O3/g 
VOC for ethane.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Solstice\TM\ 
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 Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) was 
calculated to have a higher MIR than ethane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 presents the three reactivity metrics for Solstice\TM\ 
1233zd(E) as they compare to ethane.

                           Table 1--Reactivities of Ethane and Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Maximum            Maximum
                                                            kOH (cm\3\/        incremental        incremental
                        Compound                           molecule-sec)     reactivity (MIR)   reactivity (MIR)
                                                                             (g O3/mole VOC)      (g O3/g VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane.................................................        2.4 x 10-13                8.4               0.28
Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E).................................       4.40 x 10-13               5.22              0.040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. kOH value for ethane is from Atkinson et al., 2006 (page 3626).
2. kOH value for Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 
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 Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) has a lower MIR value than a gram of ethane. 
Thus, under the Interim Guidance Solstice\TM\ 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, 
Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) will compete with HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and 
cyclopentane. Solstice\TM\ 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 
Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E), these five chemicals and ethane. The table 
shows that Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) is lower than cyclopentane on all 
three reactivity metrics. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that when 
Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) is substituted for cyclopentane, less ozone will 
result. Solstice\TM\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The SNAP program approval refers to Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) 
as a substitute certain ODSs, rather than as a substitute for the 
currently marketed compounds with which it will compete.
    \8\ HCFC-225ca and HCFC-225cb are banned as of January 1, 2015, 
and therefore have not been included in this comparison.

         Table 2--Reactivities of Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) and Five Compounds for Which It May Substitute
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Maximum            Maximum
                                                            kOH (cm\3\/        incremental        incremental
                        Compound                           molecule-sec)     reactivity (MIR)   reactivity (MIR)
                                                                             (g O3/mole VOC)      (g O3/g VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E).................................       4.40 x 10-13               5.22              0.040
HFC-245fa..............................................       7.24 x 10-15              0.106             0.0008
HFC-365mfc.............................................       7.12 x 10-15              0.089             0.0006
Cyclopentane...........................................       5.02 x 10-12                167               2.39
Methyl Chloroform......................................       1.24 x 10-14              0.654             0.0049
HFC-134a...............................................       4.59 x 10-15              0.071             0.0007
Ethane.................................................        2.4 x 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).

[[Page 11106]]

 
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, Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) compared to HFC-
245fa will also help reduce tropospheric ozone concentrations.
    In summary, the EPA believes that Solstice\TM\ 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 
Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 
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 Solstice\TM\ 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). Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) has an ozone-depleting 
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. Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 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. Solstice\TM\ 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, 
Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) described the 
potential health effects of Solstice\TM\ 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.
    Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) is not flammable.
    Sulbaek Andersen et al., 2008, states that Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E) 
is not expected to undergo wet or dry deposition to an appreciable 
extent.

C. Global Warming Potential

    Solstice\TM\ 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. 
Solstice\TM\ 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. Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E). It will 
also compete with cyclopentane which has a GWP of less than 0.1 (UNEP, 
1994) which is lower than for Solstice\TM\ 1233zd(E). Because of the 
much higher GWPs of HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc, the net global warming 
effect of increased use of Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 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

[[Page 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 Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 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 
Solstice\TM\ 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 Solstice\TM\ 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

[[Page 11108]]

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 Solstice\TM\ 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. https://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. https://
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-chloro-3,3,3-
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 trans-CF3CH=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 
refrigerator-freezers, 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. 
https://www.honeywell-solsticelba.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Analysis-of-tCFP-blowing-agents-potential-impact-on-atmospheric-ozone-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

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

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


Sec.  51.100  [Amended]

0
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