Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 62451 

use, except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section. 

(iii) Manufacturing (including 

importing) or processing of any 

chemical substance listed in Table 3 of 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section for any 

use, except as noted in paragraphs (a)(3) 

through (5) of this section. 

(iv) Manufacturing (including 

importing) or processing of any 

chemical substance listed in Table 4 of 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section for any 

use. 

(3) Manufacturing (including 

importing) or processing of any 

chemical substance listed in Table 2 and 

Table 3 of paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section for the following specific uses 

shall not be considered as a significant 

new use subject to reporting under this 

section: 

(i) Use as an anti-erosion additive in 

fire-resistant phosphate ester aviation 

hydraulic fluids. 

(ii) Use as a component of a 

photoresist substance, including a photo 

acid generator or surfactant, or as a 

component of an anti-reflective coating, 

used in a photomicrolithography 

process to produce semiconductors or 

similar components of electronic or 

other miniaturized devices. 

(iii) Use in coating for surface tension, 

static discharge, and adhesion control 

for analog and digital imaging films, 

papers, and printing plates, or as a 

surfactant in mixtures used to process 

imaging films. 

(iv) Use as an intermediate only to 

produce other chemical substances to be 

used solely for the uses listed in 

paragraph (a)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this 

section. 

(4) Manufacturing (including 

importing) or processing of 

tetraethylammonium 

perfluorooctanesulfonate (CAS No. 

56773–42–3) for use as a fume/mist 

suppressant in metal finishing and 

plating baths shall not be considered as 

a significant new use subject to 

reporting under this section. Examples 

of such metal finishing and plating 

baths include: Hard chrome plating; 

decorative chromium plating; chromic 

acid anodizing; nickel, cadmium, or 

lead plating; metal plating on plastics; 

and alkaline zinc plating. 

(5) Manufacturing (including 

importing) or processing of: 1- 

Pentanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,

5-undecafluoro-, potassium salt (CAS 

No. 3872–25–1); Glycine, N-ethyl-N- 

[(tridecafluorohexyl)sulfonyl]-, 

potassium salt (CAS No. 67584–53–6); 

Glycine, N-ethyl-N- 

[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]-, 

potassium salt (CAS No. 67584–62–7); 

1-Heptanesulfonic acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,

5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro-, 

ammonium salt (CAS No. 68259–07–4); 

1-Heptanesulfonamide, N-ethyl-1,1,2,2,

3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-pentadecafluoro- 

(CAS No. 68957–62–0); Poly(oxy-1,2- 

ethanediyl), .alpha.-[2-[ethyl

[(pentadecafluoroheptyl)sulfonyl]

amino]ethyl]-.omega.-methoxy- (CAS 

No. 68958–60–1); or 1-Hexanesulfonic 

acid, 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6- 

tridecafluoro-, compd. with 2,2′- 

iminobis[ethanol] (1:1) (CAS No. 70225– 

16–0) for use as a component of an 

etchant, including a surfactant or fume 

suppressant, used in the plating process 

to produce electronic devices shall not 

be considered a significant new use 

subject to reporting under this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Add § 721.10536 to subpart E to 

read as follows: 

§ 721.10536 Long-chain perfluoroalkyl 

carboxylate chemical substances. 

(a) Definitions. The definitions in 

§ 721.3 apply to this section. In 

addition, the following definition 

applies: Carpet means a finished fabric 

or similar product intended to be used 

as a floor covering. This definition 

excludes resilient floor coverings such 

as linoleum and vinyl tile. 

(b) Chemical substances and 

significant new uses subject to reporting. 

(1) The chemical substances identified 

below, where 5 < n < 21 or 6 < m < 21, 

are subject to reporting under this 

section for the significant new uses 

described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(i) CF3(CF2)n-COO-M where M = H+ or 

any other group where a formal 

dissociation can be made; 

(ii) CF3(CF2)n-CH = CH2; 

(iii) CF3(CF2)n-C(=O)-X where X is any 

chemical moiety; 

(iv) CF3(CF2)m-CH2-X where X is any 

chemical moiety; and 

(v) CF3(CF2)m-Y-X where Y = non-S, 

non-N heteroatom and where X is any 

chemical moiety. 

(2) The significant new use for 

chemical substances identified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section are: 

Manufacture (including import) or 

processing for use as part of carpets or 

to treat carpets (e.g., for use in the carpet 

aftercare market), except as noted in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

(3) Manufacture (including import) or 

processing of the following two longchain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate 

(LCPFAC) chemical substances for use 

as a surfactant in aftermarket carpet 

cleaning products shall not be 

considered a significant new use subject 

to reporting under this section: 

(i) Phosphonic acid, perfluoro-C6-12- 

alkyl derivs. (CAS No. 68412–68–0) and 

(ii) Phosphinic acid, bis(perfluoro-C6- 

C12-alkyl) derivs. (CAS No. 68412–69– 

1). 

(c) Specific requirements. The 

provisions of subpart A of this part 

apply to this section except as modified 

by this paragraph (c). 

(1) Revocation of certain notification 

exemptions. With respect to imports of 

carpets, the provisions of § 721.45(f) do 

not apply to this section. A person who 

imports a chemical substance identified 

in this section as part of a carpet is not 

exempt from submitting a significant 

new use notice. The other provision of 

§ 721.45(f), respecting processing a 

chemical substance as part of an article, 

remains applicable. 

(2) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2013–24651 Filed 10–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
62452 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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: http://

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 § 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 62453 

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. 

2HFC–134a, which is not an ozone depleting 

substance, has already largely replaced CFC–12 in 

motor vehicle air conditioners. 

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. 

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. 

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

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

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
62454 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51, 

Subpart F, continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 

7413, 7414, 7470–7479, 7501–7508, 7601, 

and 7602. 

§ 51.100 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 51.100 is amended at the 

end of paragraph (s)(1) introductory text 

by removing the words ‘‘and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’ and adding in their 

place 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0499; FRL–9901–35– 

Region3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and State Board 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve two State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the District of Columbia 

(hereafter ‘‘the District’’) pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or 

revised national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, 

the CAA requires states to submit a plan 

for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of such NAAQS. The 

plan is required to address basic 

program elements including, but not 

limited to, regulatory structure, 

monitoring, modeling, legal authority, 

and adequate resources necessary to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. These elements are referred 

to as infrastructure requirements. The 

District made a submittal addressing the 

infrastructure requirements for the 2008 

lead (Pb) NAAQS and a separate 

submittal addressing requirements in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES