[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37610-37614]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15347]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605; FRL-9679-2]
RIN 2060-AQ38

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds--Exclusion of trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises the EPA's definition of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This revision adds
trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234ze) to the list
of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that this
compound makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone
formation. As a result, if you are subject to certain federal
regulations limiting emissions of VOCs, your emissions of HFO-1234ze
may not be regulated for some purposes. This action may also affect
whether HFO-1234ze is considered a VOC for state regulatory purposes,
depending on whether the state relies on the EPA's definition of VOC.

DATES: The final rule is effective on July 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0605, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue
Northwest, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605 is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sanders, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-01,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this final rule include, but are
not necessarily limited to, states (typically state air pollution
control agencies) that control VOCs, and industries involved in the
manufacture or use of refrigerants, aerosol propellants and blowing
agents for insulating foams. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that
the EPA is now aware of that could potentially be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
affected. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. This action has no
substantial direct effects on industry because it does not impose any
new mandates on these entities, but, to the contrary, removes HFO-
1234ze from the regulatory definition of VOC.

                         Table 1--Potentially Affected Regulated Categories and Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Industry group                                 SIC \a\               NAICS \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants......................................................         2869, 3585     238220, 336111, 336391
Aerosol propellants...............................................               2869                     325998
Blowing agents....................................................         2869, 3086             326140, 326150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Industry Classification System.

    The use of this compound remains subject to other restrictions
under the CAA. Specifically, the use of this compound as an aerosol
propellant, blowing agent, or refrigerant or any other use in which it
would substitute for chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or
their substitutes, is subject to regulation under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program (CAA Sec.  612; 40 CFR 82 subpart
G). The SNAP program has issued final listings for HFO-1234ze as an
acceptable foam and refrigerant substitute and as an aerosol propellant
(74 FR 50129, September 30, 2009; 75 FR 34017, June 16, 2010).

B. How is this preamble organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How is this preamble organized?
II. Background
    A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy
    B. Petition to List HFO-1234ze as Exempt
III. Proposed Action and Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

II. Background

A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere in the
presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone,
the EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be
released into the atmosphere. The VOCs are those organic compounds of
carbon which form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions.
Different VOCs have different levels of reactivity--that is, they do
not react to form ozone at the same speed or do not form ozone to the
same extent. Some VOCs react slowly or form less ozone; therefore,
changes in their emissions have limited effects on local or regional
ozone pollution episodes. It has been the EPA's policy that organic
compounds with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from
the regulatory VOC definition so as to focus VOC control efforts on
compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. The EPA
also believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive for
industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly
reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. The EPA lists compounds
that it has determined to be negligibly reactive in its regulations (at
40 CFR 51.100(s)) as being excluded from the definition of VOC.
    The CAA requires the regulation of VOCs for various purposes.
Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that the EPA has the authority to
define the meaning of ``VOC,'' and hence what compounds shall be
treated as VOCs for regulatory purposes. The policy of excluding
negligibly reactive compounds from the VOC definition was first laid
out in the ``Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds'' (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977) and was supplemented most
recently with the ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' (Interim Guidance) (70
FR 54046, September 13, 2005). The EPA uses the reactivity of ethane as
the threshold for determining whether a compound has negligible
reactivity. Compounds that are less reactive than, or equally reactive
to, ethane under certain assumed conditions may be deemed negligibly
reactive and therefore suitable for exemption from the VOC definition.
Compounds that are more reactive than ethane continue to be considered
VOCs for regulatory purposes and therefore subject to control
requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound was
based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the 1977
policy.
    The EPA has used three different metrics to compare the reactivity
of a specific compound to that of ethane: (i) The reaction rate
constant (known as kOH) with the hydroxyl radical (OH); (ii)
the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) on a reactivity per unit mass
basis; and (iii) the MIR expressed on a reactivity per mole basis.
Differences between these three metrics are discussed below.
    The kOH is the reaction rate constant of the compound
with the OH radical in the air. This reaction is typically the first
step in a series of chemical reactions by which a compound breaks down
in the air and participates in the ozone-forming process. If this step
is slow, the compound will likely not form ozone at a very fast rate.
The kOH values have long been used by the EPA as a metric of
photochemical reactivity and ozone-forming activity, and they have been
the basis for most of the EPA's previous exemptions of negligibly
reactive compounds from the regulatory definition of VOC. The
kOH metric is inherently a molar comparison, i.e., it
measures the rate at which molecules react.
    The MIR values, both by mole and by mass, are a more recently
developed metric of photochemical reactivity derived from a computer-
based photochemical model. This metric considers the complete ozone
forming activity of a compound on a single day, and not merely the
first reaction step.
    The MIR values for compounds are typically expressed as grams of
ozone formed per gram of VOC (mass basis), but may also be expressed as
grams of ozone formed per mole of VOC (molar basis). For comparing the
reactivities of two compounds, using the molar MIR values considers an
equal number of molecules of the two compounds. Alternatively, using
the mass MIR values compares an equal mass of the two compounds, which
will involve different numbers of molecules, depending on the relative
molecular weights. The molar MIR comparison is consistent with the
original smog chamber experiments that underlie the original selection
of ethane as the threshold compound, in that these experiments compared
equal molar concentrations of individual VOCs. It is also consistent
with previous reactivity determinations based on kOH values,
which are inherently molar. By contrast, the mass MIR comparison is
more consistent with how MIR values and other reactivity metrics have
been applied in reactivity-based emission limits, such as the national
VOC emissions standards for aerosol coatings (73 FR 15604). Many other
VOC regulations contain limits based upon a weight of VOC per volume of
product, such as the EPA's regulations for limiting VOC emissions from
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (40 CFR part 59
subpart D). However, the fact that regulations are structured to
measure VOC content by weight for ease of implementation and
enforcement does not necessarily control whether VOC exemption
decisions should be made on a weight basis as well.
    The choice of the molar basis versus the mass basis for the ethane
comparison can be significant. In some cases, a compound might be
considered less reactive than ethane under the mass basis but not under
the molar basis. For compounds with a molecular weight higher than that
of ethane, use of the mass basis results in more VOCs being classified
as less reactive than ethane than does use of the molar basis.
    The EPA has considered the choice between a molar or mass basis for
the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. In the
Interim Guidance, the EPA stated:

    [A] comparison to ethane on a mass basis strikes the right
balance between a threshold that is low enough to capture compounds
that significantly affect ozone concentrations and a threshold that
is high enough to exempt some compounds that may usefully substitute
for more highly reactive compounds.
    When reviewing compounds that have been suggested for VOC-exempt
status, EPA will continue to compare them to ethane using
kOH expressed on a molar basis and MIR values expressed
on a mass basis.

    The EPA's 2005 Interim Guidance also noted that concerns have
sometimes been raised about the potential impact of a VOC exemption on
environmental endpoints other than ozone concentrations, including fine
particle formation, air toxics exposures, stratospheric ozone depletion
and climate change. The EPA has recognized, however, that there are
existing regulatory and non-regulatory programs that are specifically
designed to address these issues, and the EPA

continues to believe that the impacts of VOC exemptions on
environmental endpoints other than ozone formation will be adequately
addressed by these programs. The VOC exemption policy is intended to
facilitate attainment of the ozone NAAQS, and questions have been
raised as to whether the agency has authority to use its VOC exemption
policy to address concerns that are unrelated to ground-level ozone.
Thus, in general, VOC exemption decisions will continue to be based
solely on consideration of a compound's contribution to ozone
formation. However, if the EPA determines that a particular VOC
exemption is likely to result in a significant increase in the use of a
compound and that the increased use would pose a significant risk to
human health or the environment that would not be addressed adequately
by existing programs or policies, the EPA reserves the right to
exercise its judgment in deciding whether to grant an exemption.

B. Petition To List HFO-1234ze as Exempt

    Honeywell, Inc. submitted a petition to the EPA on December 2,
2009, requesting that HFO-1234ze (CAS 29118-24-9) be exempted from VOC
control based on its low reactivity relative to ethane. The petitioner
indicated that HFO-1234ze may be used in a variety of applications
including as a refrigerant, an aerosol propellant, and a blowing agent
for insulating foam. This molecule has diverse applications including
as a blowing agent for polyurethanes, polystyrene and other polymers,
and as an aerosol propellant.
    Honeywell submitted several documents, including several peer-
reviewed journal articles, to support its petition, and we made these
available in the docket for this action. These documents contained
kOH values and MIR reactivity rates for ethane and HFO-
1234ze. This information is reproduced below in Table 2. From the data
in Table 2, it can be seen that the MIR for HFO-1234ze on a grams of
ozone formed per gram of VOC basis is 0.098 which is only 35 percent
that for ethane at 0.28 on the same basis. However, HFO-1234ze has a
higher kOH value than ethane, meaning that it initially
reacts more quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. A molecule of HFO-
1234ze is also more reactive than a molecule of ethane, as shown by the
molar MIR (gO3/mole VOC) values, since equal numbers of
moles have equal numbers of molecules.

                                 Table 2--Reactivities of Ethane and HFO-1234ze
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            MIR (gO3/mole
                 Compound                     kOH (cm\3\/molecule-sec)           VOC)         MIR (gO3/gram VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane....................................  2.4 x 10-13.................                8.4                0.28
HFO-1234ze................................  9.25 x 10-13................               11.2                0.098
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. kOH value for ethane is from: R. Atkinson, D. L. Baulch, R. A. Cox, J. N. Crowley, R. F. Hampson, Jr., R. G.
  Hynes, M. E. Jenkin, J. A. Kerr, M. J. Rossi, and J. Troe (2004), Summary of evaluated kinetic and
  photochemical data for atmospheric chemistry. The reference cited in Note 3 gives a kOH value of 2.54 x 10-13
  for ethane, slightly different than the value shown in the table.
2. kOH value for HFO-1234ze is from: R. Sondergaard, O. J. Nielsen, M. D. Hurley, T. J. Wallington, and R.
  Singh, ``Atmospheric chemistry of trans-CF3CH=CHF: kinetics of the gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH
  radicals, and O3.'' Chemical Physics Letters, 443 (2007) 199-204.
3. Maximum incremental reactivity or MIR (gO3/g VOC) values for ethane (page 177) and HFO-1234ze (page 201) are
  from: William P. L. Carter, ``Development of the SAPRC-07 chemical mechanism and updated ozone reactivity
  scales'' (updated 1/27/10).
4. Molar MIR (gO3/mole VOC) values were calculated from the mass MIR (gO3/g VOC) values by determining the
  number of moles per gram of the relevant organic compound.

III. Proposed Action and Response to Comments

    Based on the mass MIR (gO3/g VOC) value for HFO-1234ze being equal
to or less than that of ethane, the EPA proposed to find that HFO-
1234ze is ``negligibly reactive'' and to exempt HFO-1234ze from the
regulatory definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). In the proposal, the
EPA noted that the EPA's New Chemicals program under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the EPA's SNAP program under the CAA
have both reviewed HFO-1234ze for potential risks to human health and
the environment. After considering all relevant data currently
available, the EPA was unable to find any unreasonable risks to human
health or the environment from the expected use of HFO-1234ze. Based on
this finding, the EPA did not find it necessary to take any actions to
prevent unreasonable risk under TSCA. The SNAP program has issued
determinations of acceptability for HFO-1234ze as an acceptable
substitute for certain ozone depleting substances in a number of foam
blowing end uses, as a refrigerant in non-mechanical heat transfer and
as a propellant as stated in Section I.
    There were four comments submitted to the docket during the public
comment period. One comment was from the petitioning manufacturer
Honeywell. One comment came from a manufacturer of products containing
the compound. This commenter wrote that as a manufacturer of high
quality specialty chemicals and supplies for electronic maintenance and
repair, it considers HFO-1234ze to be a potential alternative to
products containing higher global-warming potential compounds such as
HFC-134a and HFC-152a. It further stated that in order for this product
to be marketed in all parts of the U.S., it is essential that it be
classified as a non-VOC. Separate comments came from two trade
associations. All comments were in favor of exempting HFO-1234ze. None
of the comments opposed using the gO3/g VOC basis. The one
comment which addressed that issue supported the use of the MIR on a
gO3/g VOC basis for granting exemptions.

IV. Final Action

    The EPA is amending its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to
exclude HFO-1234ze as a VOC for ozone SIP and ozone control purposes.
States are not obligated to exclude HFO-1234ze from control as a VOC.
However, states may not take credit for controlling HFO-1234ze in their
ozone control strategies.
    In our October 17, 2011, proposal (76 FR 64059), we also proposed
to exempt 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234yf) from
the definition of VOC. We are not taking final action on that proposal
at this time.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore
not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It does not contain any
recordkeeping or reporting requirement.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of this notice on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small industrial entity
as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size
standards. (See 13 CFR 121.201); (2) A governmental jurisdiction that
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) A small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action addresses the exemption
of a chemical compound from the VOC definition. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866. While this final rule is not subject to the Executive Order, the
EPA has reason to believe that ozone has a disproportionate effect on
active children who play outdoors (62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997).
The EPA has not identified any specific studies on whether or to what
extent this chemical compound may affect children's health.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This
action revises the EPA's definition of VOCs for purposes of preparing
SIPs to attain the NAAQS for ozone under title I of the CAA.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it will not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) Rules of particular application; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties, 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not
required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of
particular applicability to manufacturers and users of these specific
exempt chemical compounds. This action is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on July 23,
2012.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the
final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition
for review by the Administrator of this final action does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
must be final, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such action.
Thus, any petitions for review of this action related to the exemption
of HFO-1234ze from the definition of VOC must be filed in the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the
date final action is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 7, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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 the words
``trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene; and perfluorocarbon compounds which
fall into these classes:''.

[FR Doc. 2012-15347 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comments Received on “EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366, Approval and Promulgation
of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast State
Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standards; 2007
State Strategy; PM2.5,”

[NRDC] Adrian Martinez, Project Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council, January 21, 2011, “EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366, Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South
Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter
Standards; 2007 State Strategy; PM2.5,” with enclosures. These
comments were joined by Jane Williams, Executive Director, California
Communities Against Toxics, and Maya Golden-Krasner, Attorney,
Communities for a Better Environment.

[CARB] James Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources
Board, January 21, 2011. Attention: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366.

[AARR] Kirk Marckwald, Principal, California Environmental Associates,
on behalf of the Association of American Railroads, January 20, 2011.Re:
California Railroad Industry Comments on EPA’s Proposed Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South
Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter
Standards; 2007 State Strategy.

[SCAQMD] Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, January 20, 2011. Re: Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast State
Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standards; 2007
State Strategy PM2.5 (Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366)

[CBE] Maya Golden-Krasner, Staff Attorney, and Julia May, Senior
Scientist, Communities for a Better Environment, January 21, 2011. Re:
Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366 CBE Comments on EPA’s partial
rejection of SCAQMD PM2.5 planning

Email, Robin Hall, private citizen, November 24, 2010.

[NRDC] Adrian Martinez, Project Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council, August 15, 2011, “EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366, Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South
Coast State Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter
Standards; 2007 State Strategy; PM2.5,” with enclosures. These
comments were joined by Angela Johnson Meszaros, California Communities
Against Toxics and Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Maya
Golden-Krasner, Attorney, Communities for a Better Environment.

[CBE] Maya Golden-Krasner, Staff Attorney, Communities for a Better
Environment, on behalf of California Communities Against Toxics,
Communities for a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council,
and Physicians for Social Responsibility, August 15, 2011. Re: Docket
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State
Strategy.

[SCAQMD] Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, August 12, 2011. Re: Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007 South Coast State
Implementation Plan for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standards; 2007
State Strategy PM2.5 (Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366).

[CIAQC] Michael W. Lewis, Senior Vice President, Construction Industry
Air Quality Coalition, August 15, 2011. RE: EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366.

[ARTBA] Lawrence J. Joseph, on behalf of the American Road and
Transportation Builders Association, dated August 15, 2011. RE: Approval
and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2007
South Coast PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy, 76 Fed Reg. 41,562 (July
14, 2011) (docket EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366)

 The majority of CARB’s and the District’s comments addressed the
November 2010 proposed disapprovals and EPA’s grounds for them. These
comments were for the most part addressed by our July 2011 amended
proposal.