[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 245 (Friday, December 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60778-60781]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27564]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82346; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-076]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 5.4, Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying Securities

December 18, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December

4, 2017, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 5.4 to allow the Exchange to
restrict option series to closing transactions when an option class is
open for trading solely on the Exchange and the underlying security
continues to meet the requirements for approval. (additions are
italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Cboe Exchange, Inc.

Rules

* * * * *

Rule 5.4. Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying Securities.

    No change.

. . . Interpretations and Policies:

    .01-.12 No change.
    .13 If an option class is open for trading on another national
securities exchange, the Exchange may delist such option class
immediately. If an option class is open for trading solely on the
Exchange, the Exchange may determine to not open for trading any
additional series in that option class[,]; may restrict series with
open interest to closing transactions, provided that, opening
transactions by Market-Makers executed to accommodate closing
transactions of other market participants and opening transactions by
TPH organizations to facilitate the closing transactions of public
customers executed as crosses pursuant to and in accordance with Rule
6.74(b) or (d) may be permitted; and may delist the option class when
all series within that class have expired. In all instances, delisting
shall be preceded by a notice to TPH organizations concerning the
delisting.
    .14-.16 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange seeks to amend Rule 5.4 to allow the Exchange to
restrict option series to closing transactions when an option class is
open for trading solely on the Exchange and the underlying security
continues to meet the requirements for approval. The Exchange believes
the ability to restrict option series to closing transactions when an
option class is open for trading solely on the Exchange and the
underlying security continues to meet the requirements for approval
will allow the Exchange to delist option series in a timely and
efficient manner.
    Currently, when an option class is trading on another exchange Cboe
Options may delist such option class immediately, regardless of whether
the option class continues to meet the requirements for approval.\5\
When an option class that no longer meets the requirements for approval
is trading solely on the Exchange the Exchange may not add any
additional series,\6\ may restrict series with open interest to closing
transactions,\7\ and may delist any series without open interest.\8\
However, when an option class continues to meet the requirements for
approval and is trading solely on the Exchange the Exchange may not
restrict series with open interest to closing transactions; instead,
the Exchange may only delist series with no open interest \9\ and
``determine to not open for trading any additional series in that
option class, and may delist the option class when all series within
that class have expired.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 5.4.13.
    \6\ See Rule 5.4 and 5.4.13.
    \7\ See Rule 5.4.12.
    \8\ See Rule 5.4.12.
    \9\ See Rule 5.4.12.
    \10\ See Rule 5.4.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange seeks to amend Interpretation and Policy .13 to Rule
5.4 to allow the Exchange to restrict option series to closing
transactions when an option class is open for trading solely on the
Exchange and the underlying security continues to meet the requirements
for approval.
    There are various business reasons why the Exchange may choose to
no longer list an option class (e.g., lack of trading interest, lack of
market-making interest, etc.). The Exchange believes restricting such
classes to closing transactions will allow open interest to be closed
in a timelier and more efficient manner. When seeking to delist an
option class the Exchange believes that restricting series to closing
transactions is a better way to transition the class to a delisted
state than the current method of not adding additional series and
allowing market participants to continue to add new positions in the
existing series. Restricting trading to closing transactions encourages
market participants to close transactions, which helps to limit any
potential negative effects associated with delisting a class. For
example, restricting trading to closing transactions helps prevent
market participants from adding new positions that cannot be rolled
into the following expiration (a common options strategy).
    The Exchange notes that this proposal is consistent with the manner
in which Rule 5.4 operates in relation to option classes with
underlying securities that no longer meet the requirements for
approval--additional series are not added, series with open interest
are restricted to closing only, and series without open interest are
delisted. As proposed, when the Exchange seeks to delist an option
class with an underlying security that continues to meet the
requirements for approval the Exchange will not open additional series
in the option class and will restrict trading to closing transactions.
Also consistent with current Rule 5.4, opening transactions by Market-
Makers executed to accommodate closing transactions of other market
participants and opening transactions by TPH organizations to
facilitate the closing transactions of public customers executed as
crosses pursuant to and in accordance with Cboe Rule 6.74(b) or

(d) may be permitted. Allowing Market-Makers and TPH organizations to
facilitate closing transactions of public customers will help public
customers close positions in classes that will be delisted by the
Exchange, which helps to protect investors and the public interest. It
is reasonable to restrict series to closing only pursuant to current
Rule 5.4 when underlying securities no longer meet requirements for
approval. The Exchange believes it is also reasonable to restrict
series to closing when the options class no longer satisfies business
justifications for listing the class.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, when seeking to delist an option class--whether or
not the underlying security continues to meet the requirements for
approval--the Exchange believes that restricting series to closing
transactions is a better way to transition the class to a delisted
state than the current method of not adding additional series and
allowing market participants to continue to add new positions in the
existing series. Restricting trading to closing transactions encourages
market participants to close transactions, which helps to limit any
potential negative effects associated with delisting a class and helps
to protect customers and the public interest.
    The Exchange notes that this proposal is consistent with the manner
in which Rule 5.4 operates in relation to option classes with
underlying securities that no longer meet the requirements for
approval--additional series are not added, series with open interest
are restricted to closing only, and series without open interest are
delisted. As proposed, when the Exchange seeks to delist an option
class with an underlying security that continues to meet the
requirements for approval the Exchange will not open additional series
in the option class and will restrict trading to closing transactions.
Also consistent with current Rule 5.4, opening transactions by Market-
Makers executed to accommodate closing transactions of other market
participants and opening transactions by TPH organizations to
facilitate the closing transactions of public customers executed as
crosses pursuant to and in accordance with Cboe Rule 6.74(b) or (d) may
be permitted. Allowing Market-Makers and TPH organizations to
facilitate closing transactions of public customers will help public
customers close positions in classes that will be delisted by the
Exchange, which helps to protect investors and the public interest. It
is reasonable to restrict series to closing only pursuant to current
Rule 5.4 when underlying securities no longer meet requirements for
approval. The Exchange believes it is also reasonable to restrict
series to closing when the option class no longer satisfies business
justifications for listing the class.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Cboe does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposed rule change is
consistent with the manner in which Rule 5.4 operates in relation to
option classes with underlying securities that no longer meet the
requirements for approval--additional series are not added, series with
open interest are restricted to closing only, and series without open
interest are delisted. Also consistent with current Rule 5.4, opening
transactions by Market-Makers executed to accommodate closing
transactions of other market participants and opening transactions by
TPH organizations to facilitate the closing transactions of public
customers executed as crosses pursuant to and in accordance with Cboe
Rule 6.74(b) or (d) may be permitted. Allowing Market-Makers and TPH
organizations to facilitate closing transactions of public customers
will help public customers close positions in classes that will be
delisted by the Exchange, which helps to protect investors and the
public interest and does not impose any burden on competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2017-076 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-076. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-076 and should be submitted on
or before January 12, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27564 Filed 12-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61884-61886]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0146; Notice 2]

BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC, (BMW) a subsidiary of BMW AG in
Munich, Germany, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2014 BMW 7
series and 6 series vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2.1
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and
Displays. BMW has filed an appropriate report dated December 5, 2013
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Amina
Fisher, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. BMW's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, BMW
submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of BMW's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 6, 2014 in the Federal Register (FR
32815). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2013-0146.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 5,806 of the
following MY 2014 BMW vehicles:
    2014 BMW 7 Series manufactured between July 1, 2013 and November 4,
2013;
    2014 BMW 6 Series Coupe M Sport Edition manufactured between May
15, 2013 and October 29, 2013;
    2014 BMW 6 Series Grand Coupe M Sport Edition manufactured between
May 15, 2013 and July 30, 2013; and
    2014 BMW 6 Series Convertible M Sport Edition manufactured between
April 2, 2013 and October 29, 2013.
    III. Noncompliance: BMW explains that while using in-vehicle
controls and displays, there is a possibility for the vehicle operator
or front seat passenger to enable the speedometer to display vehicle
speed in units of either only miles-per-hour (mph) or only kilometers-
per-hour (km/h). Since all vehicles sold in the U.S. must display
vehicle speeds in mph, or mph and km/h these vehicles fail to fully
meet the requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires in
pertinent part:

    S5.2.1 Except for the Low Tire Pressure Telltale, each control,
telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or
Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column
2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table
1 or Table 2 . . .

                                  Table 1--Controls, Telltales, and Indicators With Illumination or Color Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Column 5
      Column 1 item            Column 2 symbol        Column 3 words or abbreviations     Column 4 function     illumination          Column 6 color
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Speedometer.............  ........................           MPH, or MPH and km/h \14\           Indicator                 Yes   .......................

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 * * * * * * *
14. If the speedometer is graduated in both miles per hour and in kilometers per hour, the scales must be identified ``MPH'' and ``km/h'', respectively,
  in any combination of upper- and lowercase letters. . . .

    V. Summary of BMW's Analyses: BMW stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
    1. BMW states that vehicles are initially delivered for first-sale
in a compliant state (speed display in miles-per-hour) and that it is
only through driver (or passenger) interaction within the Settings menu
that the display can be changed from miles-per-hour to kilometers-per-
hour. BMW believes that this adjustment cannot be accomplished
inadvertently.
    2. BMW states that the two speedometer scales are noticeably
different, and that if a previous driver changed the units, a
subsequent driver would be able to tell at a glance that the scale is
not in miles-per-hour.
    3. BMW states that the indicated vehicle speed in km/h is 1.6 times
greater than speed in mph. BMW believes that if a vehicle operator
changes the display to indicate km/h and later forgets that the change
had been made, the operator will clearly recognize that the vehicle is
moving at a lower speed than intended and adjust the vehicle speed to
match road and traffic conditions. This should signal the operator (at
the next appropriate opportunity) to perform the necessary steps to
adjust the speedometer.
    4. BMW also states that the vehicle's Owner Manual contains
information pertaining to the use of the iDrive\TM\ controller to
change the units displayed within the ``Settings'' menu. Therefore, if
a vehicle operator needs to reconfigure the display to indicate mph,
instructions are available.
    5. BMW further states that the vehicle's Owner Manual and Service
and Warranty Book contain the toll-free telephone number for BMW
Customer Relations. Additionally, the in-vehicle iDrive\TM\ system
offers the vehicle operator a BMW Customer Relations menu option to
directly contact BMW Customer Relations via the embedded wireless
communications module. Therefore, if a vehicle operator notices that
the speed is incorrectly displayed in km/h and does not know how to
reset the speed to display in mph, e.g., as set by a prior operator,
the vehicle operator can easily contact BMW Customer Relations for
assistance.
    6. BMW is not aware of any contacts from vehicle operators
regarding this issue.
    7. BMW is also not aware of any accidents or injuries that have
occurred as a result of this issue.
    BMW has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 101.
    In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt BMW from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA Decision

    NHTSA Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed BMW's justification for an
inconsequential noncompliance determination and agrees that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    BMW explained that the affected vehicles are delivered in a
compliant state with the speedometer displaying miles-per-hour (mph)
and that switching the display to kilometers-per-hour (km/h) could not
be done inadvertently because the driver (or passenger) would have to
complete multiple interactions within the vehicle's settings menu to
make the change. NHTSA agrees with BMW that it is unlikely that the
switch from mph to km/h could be done inadvertently because several
physical actions are required by the operator to make the change. We
believe that if an operator were to make this change it would be done
intentionally and with some understanding of the implications, and that
such a change would not cause any impact to vehicle safety.
Furthermore, we believe that the vast majority of the owners of these
vehicles will continue to operate these vehicles as purchased (with the
speed identified in mph) and never attempt to change to the metric
units.
    Next, BMW stated that the speedometer scales are noticeably
different and provided figures showing the speedometer appearance with
each different unit of measure. BMW explained that if a previous driver
changed the units being displayed a subsequent driver would be able to
tell at a glance which scale is being used. The agency reviewed the
speedometer figures provided by BMW indicating the different units of
measure. We agree that it is easy to identify the units of measure
being used because the abbreviated units are clearly labeled in the top
center of the speedometer. We believe that the act of a driver
realizing the vehicle is indicating speed in km/h instead of mph would
not cause any unintended or unsafe actions by the driver and would thus
be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. In this case, once a driver
realized the speedometer was indicating in km/h, we anticipate the
driver would want to change the speedometer back to mph, and would
refer to the owner's manual or BMW's customer assistance for guidance.
    Lastly, BMW stated its belief that because indicated vehicle speed
in km/h is 1.6 times greater than the same speed in mph, a driver who
does not initially notice that a vehicle's speed indication is in km/h
would soon recognize that the vehicle is moving at a speed much slower
than the surrounding traffic and will adjust accordingly to match road
and traffic conditions. With some caution, we agree with BMW's
assessment. While a vehicle traveling as much as 1.6 times slower could
hamper the natural flow of traffic, we believe that affected drivers
would in-fact adjust their speed to the surrounding traffic and then,
at the next appropriate opportunity, perform the necessary steps to
adjust the speedometer back to mph.
    NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that BMW has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No.
101 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, BMW's petition is hereby granted and BMW is exempted from
the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that BMW no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after BMW
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-26062 Filed 10-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6481-6485]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02325]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0795; FRL-9922-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR65

Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory Definition of Volatile
Organic Compounds--Requirements for t-Butyl Acetate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend the EPA's regulatory definition of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The regulatory definition of VOCs
currently excludes t-butyl acetate (also known as tertiary butyl
acetate or TBAC; CAS NO: 540-88-5) for purposes of VOC emissions
limitations or VOC content requirements on the basis that it makes a
negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. However, the
current definition includes TBAC as a VOC for purposes of all
recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling
and inventory requirements which apply to VOCs. The regulatory
definition requires that TBAC be uniquely identified in emission
reports. TBAC is used as a solvent in paints, inks and adhesives, in
which it substitutes for compounds that are regulated as VOCs. This
proposed action would remove recordkeeping, emissions reporting,
photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements related to
the use of TBAC as a VOC.
    The EPA has concluded that these requirements are not resulting in
useful information. Furthermore, there is no evidence that TBAC is
being used at levels that would cause concern for ozone formation. As
these requirements are unnecessary and can be burdensome for states and
industry, we are proposing to revoke these requirements and exclude
TBAC from the regulatory definition of VOCs for all purposes. Note that
the EPA is not reconsidering its determination that TBAC is
``negligibly reactive'' with respect to ground-level ozone formation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing concerning the proposed regulation on or before March 9, 2015
we will hold a public hearing on March 23, 2015. If a public hearing is
requested, it will be held at 10 a.m. on the EPA campus in Research
Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby. Please refer to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the comment
period and the public hearing.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0795, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0795 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Mail Code: 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0795, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0795. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0795. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov,
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available

either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0795, EPA, WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Souad Benromdhane, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts
Division, Mail Code C539-07, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-5315; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    C. How can I find information about a possible public hearing?
II. Background
    A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy
    B. History of the VOC Exemption for TBAC Including the Unique
Recordkeeping, Emissions Reporting, Photochemical Dispersion
Modeling and Inventory Requirements
    C. Petition to Remove Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
from the TBAC Exemption
III. The EPA's Assessment of the Petition
IV. Proposed 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 (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    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 (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule include, but
are not necessarily limited to, state and local air pollution control
agencies that prepare VOC emission inventories and ozone attainment
demonstrations for state implementation plans (SIPs). These agencies
would be relieved of the requirements to separately inventory emissions
of TBAC. This proposed action may also affect manufacturers,
distributors and users of TBAC and TBAC-containing products, which may
include paints, inks and adhesives. This action would allow state air
agencies to no longer require these entities to report emissions of
TBAC.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI: Do not submit this information to the EPA
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. How can I find information about a possible public hearing?

    To request a public hearing or information pertaining to a public
hearing, contact Ms. Eloise Shepherd, Health and Environmental Impacts
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-02), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 organic compounds of carbon,
many of 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 definition of VOCs so as to focus 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)).
    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 ``VOCs,'' 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 laid out in the ``Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds'' (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977) and was supplemented

subsequently with the ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' (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 by EPA 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 uses two different metrics to compare the reactivity of a
specific compound to that of ethane: (1) The reaction rate constant
(known as kOH) with the hydroxyl radical (OH) and (2) the
maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) on ozone production per unit mass
basis. Differences between these metrics and the rationale for their
selection is discussed further in the 2005 Interim Guidance (70 FR
54046, September 13, 2005).

B. History of the VOC Exemption for TBAC Including the Unique
Recordkeeping, Emissions Reporting, Photochemical Dispersion Modeling
and Inventory Requirements

    On January 17, 1997, ARCO Chemical Company (now known as and from
here forward referred to as LyondellBasell) submitted a petition to the
EPA which requested that the EPA add TBAC to the list of compounds
which are designated negligibly reactive in the regulatory definition
of VOCs at 40 CFR 51.100(s). The materials submitted in support of this
petition are contained in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0084. LyondellBasell's
case for TBAC being less reactive than ethane was based primarily on
the use of relative incremental reactivity factors set forth in a 1997
report by Carter, et al.\1\ Although the kOH values for TBAC
are higher than for ethane, Carter's results indicated that the MIR
value for TBAC, expressed in units of grams of ozone per gram of TBAC,
was between 0.43 and 0.48 times the MIR for ethane, depending on the
chemical mechanism used to calculate the MIR. In other words, TBAC
formed less than half as much ozone as an equal weight of ethane under
the conditions assumed in the calculation of the MIR scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Carter, William P.L., Dongmin Luo, and Irina L. Malkina
(1997). Investigation of the Atmospheric Ozone Formation Potential
of T-Butyl Acetate, Report to ARCO Chemical Corporation, Riverside:
College of Engineering Center for Environmental Research and
Technology, University of California, 97-AP-RT3E-001-FR, http://
www.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/pubs/tbuacetr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 1999, the EPA proposed to revise the regulatory
definition of VOCs to exclude TBAC, relying on the comparison of MIR
factors expressed on a mass basis to conclude that TBAC is negligibly
reactive (64 FR 52731, September 30, 1999). However, in the final rule,
the EPA concluded at that time that even ``negligibly reactive''
compounds may contribute significantly to ozone formation if present in
sufficient quantities and that emissions of these compounds need to be
represented accurately in photochemical modeling analyses. In addition
to these general concerns about the potential cumulative impacts of
negligibly reactive compounds, the need to maintain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for TBAC was further justified by the potential
for widespread use of TBAC, the fact that its relative reactivity falls
close to the borderline of what has been considered negligibly
reactive, and continuing efforts to assess long-term health risks.\2\
Based on these conclusions, the EPA promulgated a final rule under
which TBAC was excluded from the definition of VOCs for purposes of VOC
emissions limitations or VOC content requirements, but continued to be
defined as a VOC for purposes of all recordkeeping, emissions
reporting, and inventory requirements which apply to VOCs (69 FR 69298,
November 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Between the EPA's proposed and final rule exempting TBAC as
a VOC, the state of California raised concerns to the EPA about the
potential carcinogenicity of tertiary-butanol, or TBA, the principal
metabolite of TBAC. At the time, the EPA decided that there was
insufficient evidence of health risks to affect the exemption
decision, but persuaded LyondellBasell to voluntarily perform
additional toxicity testing, use the testing results in a health
risk assessment, and have the testing and assessment results
reviewed in a peer consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule, the EPA argued that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements were not new requirements for TBAC as industry
and states were already subject to such requirements to report TBAC as
a VOC prior to the exemption. However, in practice, the rule created a
new, distinct recordkeeping and reporting burden by requiring that TBAC
be ``uniquely identified'' in emission reports, rather than aggregated
with other compounds as VOC. The final rule explained that the EPA was
in the process of reviewing its overall VOC exemption policy and that
the potential for retaining recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for compounds exempted from the definition of VOCs in the future would
be considered in that process. That process led to the development of
the 2005 Interim Guidance (70 FR 54046, September 13, 2005), which
encouraged the development of speciated inventories for highly reactive
compounds and identified the voluntary submission of emissions
estimates for exempt compounds as an option for further consideration,
but did not recommend mandatory reporting requirements associated with
future exemptions. Thus, TBAC is the only compound that is excluded
from the VOCs definition for purposes of emission controls but is still
considered a VOC for purposes of recordkeeping and reporting.

C. Petition to Remove Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements from the
TBAC Exemption

    The EPA received a petition from LyondellBasell in December 2009,
which was re-affirmed in November 2011, requesting the removal of
recordkeeping and reporting requirements from the final rule to exempt
TBAC from the regulatory VOCs definition. LyondellBasell contends that
the emissions reporting requirements are redundant and present an
unnecessary bureaucratic burden.

III. The EPA's Assessment of the Petition

    In most cases, when a negligibly reactive VOC is exempted from the
definition of VOCs, emissions of that compound are no longer recorded,
collected, or reported to states or the EPA as part of VOC emissions.
When the EPA exempted TBAC from the VOCs definition for purposes of
control requirements, the EPA created a new category of compounds and a
new reporting requirement. The new definition required that emissions
of TBAC be reported separately by states and, in turn, by industry.
However, the EPA did not issue any guidance on how TBAC emissions
should be tracked and reported, and implementation of this requirement
by states has thus been inconsistent. A few states have modified their
rules and emissions inventory processes to track TBAC emissions
separately and provide that information to the EPA. Others appear to
have included TBAC with other undifferentiated VOCs in their emissions
inventories. Thus, the data that have been collected to date as a
result of these requirements are

incomplete and inconsistent. In addition, the EPA has not established
protocols for receiving and analyzing TBAC emissions data collected
under the requirements of the rule.
    Although the reactivity of TBAC and other negligibly reactive
compounds is low, if emitted in large quantities, they could still
contribute significantly to ozone formation in some locations. However,
without speciated emissions estimates or extensive speciated
hydrocarbon measurements, it is difficult to assess the impacts of any
one exempted compound or even the cumulative impact of all of the
exempted compounds.
    In the 2004 TBAC rule, the EPA stated the primary objective of the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for TBAC was to address these
cumulative impacts of ``negligibly reactive'' compounds and suggested
that future exempt compounds may also be subject to such requirements.
However, such requirements have not been included in any other proposed
or final VOC exemptions since the TBAC decision. Having even high
quality data on TBAC emissions alone is unlikely to be very useful in
assessing the cumulative impacts of exempted compounds on ozone
formation. Thus, the requirements are not achieving their primary
objective to inform more accurate photochemical modeling in support of
SIP submissions.
    With regard to the concerns related to efforts to characterize
long-term health risks associated with TBAC and its metabolite
tertiary-butyl alcohol (TBA), since the rule was finalized,
LyondellBasell performed additional toxicity testing and a health risk
assessment and submitted the peer-consultation results to the EPA in
2009.\3\ In addition, in 2006, the State of California published its
own assessment of the potential health effects associated with TBA and
TBAC.\4\ The EPA is currently in the process of assessing the evidence
for health risks from TBA through its Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) program.\5\ A draft of this assessment is expected to be
circulated for public comment in 2015. The existing toxicity
information being examined in the IRIS assessment does not rely on any
of the data collected through the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and thus those requirements do not appear relevant to any
likely future determinations about the health risks associated with
TBAC or TBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (2009). Report of
the Peer Consultation of the Potential Risk of Health Effects from
Exposure to Tertiary-Butyl Acetate, January 7-8, 2009, Northern
Kentucky University METS Center, Erlanger, Kentucky, Volumes I and
II, http://www.tera.org/Peer/TBAC/index.html.
    \4\ Luo, Dongmin, et al. (2006) Environmental Impact Assessment
of Tertiary-Butyl Acetate, Staff Report, Sacramento: California
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, January 2006,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/tbacf.pdf http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/tbaca1.pdf http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/tbaca2.pdf.
    \5\ See http://www.epa.gov/iris/publicmeeting/iris_bimonthly-dec2013/mtg_docs.htm#etbe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to revise certain aspects of the EPA's
regulatory definition of VOCs under the CAA. The regulatory definition
of VOCs currently excludes TBAC on the basis that it makes a negligible
contribution to tropospheric ozone formation and contains a specific
requirement for recordkeeping and reporting of TBAC emissions.
    The recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion
modeling and inventory requirements for TBAC are not resulting in
useful information. Furthermore, there is no evidence that TBAC is
being used at levels that would cause concern for ozone formation.
Additionally, the EPA believes these requirements, which are unique
among all VOC-exempt compounds, are of limited utility because they do
not provide sufficient information to judge the cumulative impacts of
exempted compounds, and because they have not been consistently
collected and reported. Because these requirements are not addressing
any of the concerns as they were intended, the EPA proposes to revoke
the requirements for TBAC and relieve industry and states of the
associated information collection burden until such time that the EPA
re-evaluates the necessity for reporting and recordkeeping of
negligibly reactive compounds generally.
    This proposed action would remove recordkeeping, emissions
reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements
related to the use of TBAC. This action would not affect the existing
exclusion of TBAC from the regulatory definition of VOCs for purposes
of emission limits and control requirements.
    We note that removal of the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements does not indicate that the EPA has reached final
conclusions about all aspects of the health effects posed by the use of
TBAC or its metabolite TBA. The EPA is currently awaiting completion of
the IRIS assessment on the potential risks involved with TBA and its
toxicity. If it becomes clear that action is warranted due to the
health risks of direct exposure to TBA or TBAC, the EPA will consider
the range of authorities at its disposal to mitigate these risks
appropriately.

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 and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA. It does not contain any new recordkeeping or
reporting requirements. This action would remove recordkeeping,
emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory
requirements related to use of TBAC.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
would remove recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical
dispersion modeling and inventory requirements related to use of TBAC.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandates as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This proposed action would remove existing
emission inventory reporting and other requirements that uniquely apply
to

TBAC among all VOC-exempt compounds. 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 Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed
by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action
would remove recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical
dispersion modeling and inventory requirements related to use of TBAC.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action would remove existing
emission inventory reporting and other requirements that uniquely apply
to TBAC among all VOC-exempt compounds.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risks addressed
by this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. The EPA did not conduct an environmental
analysis for this rule because the EPA does not believe that removing
the unique reporting requirements will lead to substantial and
predictable changes in the use of TBAC in and near particular
communities.

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: January 29, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS SUBPART F PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

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

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

Sec.  51.100  [Amended]

0
2. Section 51.100 is amended by:
0
a. Adding the term ``t-butyl acetate;'' before the phrase
``perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:'' to
paragraph (s)(1) introductory text; and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (s)(5).

[FR Doc. 2015-02325 Filed 2-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P