Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds-Exclusion of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 62451-62455 [2013-23783]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62451-62455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23783]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605; FRL-9900-53-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR70


Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic 
Compounds--Exclusion of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action to revise the regulatory 
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 final action adds 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene 
(also known as HFO-1234yf) to the list of compounds excluded from the 
regulatory definition of VOCs 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-1234yf may not be regulated for some 
purposes. This action may also affect whether HFO-1234yf is considered 
a VOC for state regulatory purposes, depending on whether the state 
relies on the EPA's regulatory definition of VOCs.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID

[[Page 62452]]

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will 
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605, EPA/DC, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the 
Air and Radiation Docket Information Center is (202) 566-1742. For 
additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA 
Docket Center homepage at: https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sanders, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-01, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-3356; fax 
number: 919-541-0824; email address: sanders.dave@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this final rule include, but are 
not necessarily limited to, states (typically state air pollution 
control agencies) that control VOCs; manufacturers, importers or 
processors of this compound; and industries involved in the manufacture 
or servicing of automobiles or automotive air conditioning systems. 
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-1234yf from the regulatory definition of VOCs. 
The use of this compound is subject to restrictions under the CAA and 
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 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 prohibited unless 
such use has been approved under the Significant New Alternatives 
Policy (SNAP) program (CAA Sec.  612; 40 CFR 82 subpart G). The SNAP 
program has issued a final approval for HFO-1234yf only as a substitute 
for use in the motor vehicle air conditioning end-use as a replacement 
for ozone depleting substances (76 FR 17488, March 29, 2011; revised at 
77 FR 17344, March 26, 2012). Furthermore, any significant new use of 
HFO-1234yf is subject to a reporting requirement according to a 
significant new use rule (SNUR) established under TSCA (75 FR 65987, 
October 27, 2010; proposed for amendment at 78 FR 32617, May 31, 2013).

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-1234yf as an Exempt Compound
    C. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone
    D. Health and Environmental Risks
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. 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 definition of VOCs 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 
regulatory definition of VOCs (40 CFR 51.100(s)).
    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 regulatory definition of VOCs 
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 VOCs. 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. If a 
compound is equally or less reactive than ethane on

[[Page 62453]]

any one of these three metrics, then under the Interim Guidance it is 
considered by the EPA to be negligibly reactive in forming ozone. A 
full description of each metric and how it is derived can be found in 
the proposal notice for this action (76 FR 64059, October 17, 2011) and 
is not repeated here.

B. Petition To List HFO-1234yf as an Exempt Compound

    Honeywell Inc. submitted a petition to the EPA on June 29, 2009, 
requesting that HFO-1234yf (CAS 754-12-1) be exempted from VOC control 
based on its low reactivity relative to ethane. The petitioner 
indicated that HFO-1234yf may be used as a refrigerant for 
refrigeration and air-conditioning. Honeywell also indicated that it 
expects HFO-1234yf to be widely used as a replacement for HFC-134a in 
motor vehicle air-conditioners (MVAC), and that it has been 
specifically developed for this purpose. Honeywell asserts that as a 
replacement for use in motor vehicle air conditioners, there will be an 
environmental advantage in that the global warming potential (GWP) of 
HFO-1234yf is 4, which is substantially lower than the GWP for HFC-134a 
(100-year GWP = 1430), which HFO-1234yf is designed to replace.

C. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone

    Detailed information on the ozone reactivity of HFO-1234yf was 
presented in the proposal notice for this action (76 FR 64059, October 
17, 2011) and is summarized here.
    HFO-1234yf has a higher kOH value than ethane, meaning 
that it initially reacts more quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. A 
molecule of HFO-1234yf is also more reactive than a molecule of ethane. 
However, a gram of HFO-1234yf has the same reactivity as a gram of 
ethane.
    Under the Interim Guidance, if a compound is equally or less 
reactive than ethane on any one or more of the three reactivity 
metrics, it is considered by the EPA to be negligibly reactive in 
forming ozone. The data submitted by Honeywell support the conclusion 
that the reactivity of HFO-1234yf is equal to or lower than that of 
ethane on a mass MIR basis. Thus, HFO-1234yf is eligible for exemption 
from the regulatory definition of VOCs under the terms of the Interim 
Guidance.
    The EPA has also considered the results of a recent peer-reviewed 
study of the increase in ozone that may occur as a result of the 
substitution of HFO-1234yf for HFC-134a.\1\ The additional information 
from this study shows that, under the assumptions used in the air 
quality modeling, the use of HFO-1234yf would produce slightly more 
ozone than continued use of HFC-134a, but the increase is unlikely to 
have a significant impact on local air quality. The EPA believes the 
very small increase (0.01 percent) in ozone concentrations that may 
result from encouraging the use of HFO-1234yf via an exemption from the 
regulatory definition of VOC does not constitute a sufficient reason to 
depart from the Interim Guidance's reliance on MIR comparisons to 
ethane as the basis for approving VOC exemption requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ D. Luecken, R. Waterland, S. Papasavva, K. Taddonio, W. 
Hutzell, J. Rugh, and S. Andersen. Ozone and TFA Impacts in North 
America from Degradation of 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), 
A Potential Greenhouse Gas Replacement. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 
pp. 343-349. See 76 FR 64059 (October 17, 2011). See 76 FR 64059 
(October 17, 2011) at 64062 for additional description of this study 
and the EPA's assessment of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the EPA believes that this chemical qualifies as 
negligibly reactive with respect to its contribution to tropospheric 
ozone formation.

D. Health and Environmental Risks

    The preamble to the proposal notice for this action (76 FR 64059, 
October 17, 2011) provided background information on the Premanufacture 
Notice (PMN) and SNAP reviews of HFO-1234yf. This information is 
summarized and updated here.
    After reviewing available information and public comments regarding 
its safety, health and environmental risks and benefits under the SNAP 
program, the EPA issued a final listing on March 29, 2011, for HFO-
1234yf as an acceptable substitute for use of ozone depleting 
substances in MVAC, subject to specific use conditions, in place of 
CFC-12 and HFC-134a (76 FR 174888).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ HFC-134a, which is not an ozone depleting substance, has 
already largely replaced CFC-12 in motor vehicle air conditioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNAP review, the EPA found that the use of HFO-1234yf in new 
passenger vehicle and light-duty truck MVAC systems, subject to the use 
conditions, does not present a significantly greater risk to human 
health and the environment compared to the currently approved MVAC 
alternatives. The 2011 SNAP rule for HFO-1234yf was amended on March 
26, 2012, to incorporate by reference a revised standard for connecting 
fittings from SAE International (77 FR 17344).
    Under the TSCA, the EPA in 2010 completed a pre-manufacture review 
for HFO-1234yf and issued a SNUR (75 FR 65987, October 27, 2010). The 
2010 SNUR for HFO-1234yf requires significant new use notification to 
the EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing or processing for uses 
beyond air conditioning in new passenger cars and vehicles or 
commercial servicing of new passenger cars and vehicles originally 
designed for HFO-1234yf. In particular, under the 2010 rule, 
notification is required before HFO-1234yf can be sold directly to 
consumers for the purpose of servicing the MVAC system of their own 
vehicles. During the notification period, the EPA can take further 
action to prevent any unreasonable risk. This precautionary step was 
taken because of certain animal exposure studies indicating toxicity, 
and the possibility that consumers might be exposed to levels of HFO-
1234yf that would cause an unreasonable health risk. However, based on 
information submitted subsequent to the 2010 rule that in the EPA's 
view resolves the issue pertaining to the potential risks from consumer 
exposure that was present in 2010, the EPA has proposed to amend the 
SNUR for HFO-1234yf such that notification would not be required prior 
to sale of HFO-1234yf-containing consumer products used to recharge the 
MVAC systems in passenger cars and vehicles originally designed for 
HFO-1234yf (78 FR 32617, May 31, 2013).

III. Proposed Action and Response to Comments

    Based on the mass MIR value for HFO-1234yf being equal to or less 
than that of ethane, the EPA proposed to find that HFO-1234yf is 
``negligibly reactive'' and to exempt HFO-1234yf from the regulatory 
definition of VOCs at 40 CFR 51.100(s) (76 FR 64059, October 17, 
2011).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In this proposal, we also proposed to exempt trans-1,3,3,3-
tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234ze) from the definition of 
VOC. We have taken final action separately for HFO-1234ze on that 
proposal. 77 FR 37610, June 22, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were two comments regarding HFO-1234yf submitted to the 
docket during the public comment period. One comment was from the 
petitioner, Honeywell. Another comment came from the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers. Both comments were in favor of exempting HFO-
1234yf. The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for the proposed 
action.

IV. Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve the petition for 
exemption of HFO-1234yf from the regulatory definition of VOCs.
    If an entity uses or produces HFO-1234yf and is subject to the EPA

[[Page 62454]]

regulations limiting the use of VOC in a product other than an aerosol 
coating, limiting the VOC emissions from a facility, or otherwise 
controlling the use of VOC for purposes related to attaining the ozone 
NAAQS, then the compound will not be counted as a VOC in determining 
whether these regulatory obligations have been met. Emissions of this 
compound will not be considered in determining whether a proposed new 
or modified source triggers the applicability of Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, in areas where the PSD 
program is implemented by the EPA or a delegated state, local or tribal 
agency. This action may also affect whether HFO-1234yf is considered a 
VOC for state regulatory purposes to reduce ozone formation, depending 
on whether a state relies on the EPA's regulatory definition of VOCs. 
States are not obligated to exclude from control as VOCs those 
compounds that the EPA has found to be negligibly reactive. However, 
states may not take credit for controlling these compounds in their 
ozone control strategies.
    This action is consistent with the Interim Guidance in that one of 
the three reactivity metric values for HFO-1234yf compares favorably to 
the corresponding value for ethane. This action is also supported by 
the EPA's finding during PMN review that HFO-1234yf did not present an 
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment from the expected 
uses of the substance, our finding in the SNAP program review of this 
chemical that use of this chemical in currently-allowed applications 
poses lower or comparable overall risk to human health and the 
environment than other acceptable options for the same uses and our 
confidence that the SNAP program, and the requirements under TSCA 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.

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 
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 action on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration (SBA) regulation (see 13 CFR 
121.201); (2) a small 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 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 U.S.C. 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 final rule 
removes HFO-1234yf from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby 
relieves users from requirements to control emissions of the compound. 
We have, therefore, concluded that today's 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 final rule 
removes HFO-1234yf from the regulatory 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 final rule removes HFO-1234yf 
from the regulatory 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. 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

[[Page 62455]]

EPA has not identified any specific studies on whether or to what 
extent HFO-1234yf may affect children's health.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 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, February 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 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 November 21, 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 HFO-1234yf from the regulatory definition of VOCs 
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: September 19, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
EPA 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--[Amended]

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 
``2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene; and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 
into these classes:''.

[FR Doc. 2013-23783 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P