[Federal Register: August 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 47635-47638]
[DOCID:fr14au08-57]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28354; File No. 812-13532]

Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation, et al.; Notice
of Application

August 8, 2008
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under Section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the ``1940 Act'') granting
exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c), and
27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder.

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

Applicants:  Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation
(``PALAC''), Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation Variable
Account B (``Account''), and Prudential Annuities Distributors, Inc.
(``PAD,'' and collectively with PALAC, and the Account, the
``Applicants'').

Summary of Application:  Applicants seek an order under Section 6(c) of
the 1940 Act to the extent necessary to permit, under specified
circumstances, the recapture of credits applied to purchase payments
made under the Advanced Series XTra Credit Eight variable annuity
contract (``Contract''), as well as other contracts that PALAC may
issue in the future through the Account or any other separate account
established in the future by PALAC that support variable annuity
contracts that are substantially similar in all material respects to
the Contract.

Filing Date:  The application was filed on May 7, 2008 and amended on
July 15, 2008.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the
Commission and serving Applicants with a copy of the request,
personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the
Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 2, 2008, and should be accompanied
by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the
nature of the requester's interest, the reason for the request, and the
issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may
request notification by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-
1090. Applicants, c/o C. Christopher Sprague, Esq., The Prudential
Insurance Company of America, 751 Broad Street, Newark, NJ 07102-2992.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Roberts, Staff Attorney, or
Joyce M. Pickholz, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division
of Investment Management, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from
the SEC's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1090 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Contract \1\ is a ``bonus annuity'' that offers a credit of
up to 8% of purchase payments (``Contract Credits''). Applicants
propose to recapture the Contract Credits under the following
circumstances: (a) If the Contract is returned during the free look
period, (b) if the Contract Credit was applied within 12 months prior
to death (except that PALAC will not recapture the Contract Credit to
the extent that the death benefit is equal to the account value, but
after the recovery of all or a portion of the Contract Credit, the
death benefit would be equal to less than purchase payments minus
proportional withdrawals), and (c) if the Contract Credit was applied
within 12 months prior to the exercise of the medically-related
surrender of the Annuity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PALAC also offers a ``private label'' version of the
Contract, called Optimum XTra, which is sold through Linsco/Private
Ledger Corp. References to the ``Contract'' in this application are
intended to include that private label version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants seek an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 1940
Act exempting them from Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A) of
the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to
permit PALAC to recapture the Contract Credits under the scenarios
described above. Applicants request that the order apply to any
separate account established in the future by PALAC (``Future
Account'') that supports variable annuity contracts offered by PALAC in
the future that are substantially similar in all material respects to
the Contract (``Future Contracts''). Applicants also request that the
order extend to any FINRA member broker-dealer controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with PALAC, whether existing or created in
the future, that serves as a distributor or principal underwriter of
the Contract offered through the Account or any Future Account
(``Broker-Dealers''). Applicants also request that the order extend to
any broker-dealers that are FINRA-registered and not affiliated with
PALAC or the Broker-Dealers (the ``Unaffiliated Broker-Dealers''). Each
Unaffiliated Broker-Dealer will have entered into a dealer agreement
with PAD or an affiliate of PAD prior to offering the Contract.
    3. The Contract is a flexible premium deferred variable annuity
contracts that is registered on Form N-4 (file no. 333-150220). The
minimum initial purchase payment is $10,000, and any additional
purchase payment must be at least $100 (except for contract owners who
participate in certain periodic purchase payment programs). The maximum
issue age for the Contract is 75, meaning that (a) the owner must be 75
or younger, or (b) for a Contract that is entity-owned, the annuitant
must be 75 or younger.
    4. There are various insurance features under the Contract and
charges associated with those features. There is a mortality and
expense risk charge equal to 1.60% annually, and an administration
charge equal to 0.15% annually. There is a maintenance fee equal to the
lesser of $35 or 2% of account value, which is assessed annually on the
Contract's anniversary date or upon surrender. PALAC imposes no fee
with respect to the first 20 transfers in an annuity year, but after
the 20th such transfer, currently imposes a fee of $10 per transfer
($15 maximum). There is a contingent deferred sales charge (``CDSC'')
under the Contract, the amount of which is based on the number of years
that have elapsed since the issue date of the annuity. The CDSC begins
at 9% in year one, and each year thereafter is equal, respectively, to
9%, 8%, 7%, 6%, 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%, 1%, with no CDSC in years 11 and later.
No CDSC is imposed on the portion of a withdrawal that can be taken as
part of the free withdrawal feature of the Contract. The maximum free
withdrawal amount available in each annuity year is equal to 10% of all
purchase payments that are subject to a CDSC. Earnings are not subject
to any CDSC, and thus are not considered part of the free withdrawal.
No CDSC is imposed in any situation in which Applicants recapture a
Contract Credit.
    5. A Contract owner may select one or more of several optional
living benefits. The Guaranteed Minimum Income Benefit, which offers
lifetime payments based on a guaranteed protected value, is subject to
a charge of 0.50% per year of the average protected income value each
year. The Lifetime Five Income Benefit (which allows the owner to
withdraw a specified protected value through periodic withdrawals or as
a series of payments for life) is subject to a charge of 0.60% annually
of the average daily net assets in the sub-accounts. The Contract also
offers a variant of the Lifetime Five benefit (called ``Spousal
Lifetime Five'') that, for a charge of 0.75% annually, guarantees
income until the second-to-die of two individuals married to each
other. There is yet another variant called Highest Daily Lifetime Five,
under which the protected withdrawal value is based on a highest daily
account value and which bears a charge of 0.60% annually. There are
other lifetime withdrawal benefits called Highest Daily Lifetime Seven,
Spousal Highest Daily Lifetime Seven, Highest Daily Lifetime Seven with
Beneficiary Income Option, Spousal Highest Daily Lifetime Seven with
Beneficiary Income Option, and Highest Daily Lifetime Seven with
Lifetime Income Accelerator. The charges for these benefits range from
0.60% to 0.95% of the Protected Withdrawal Value under the benefit. The
Contract offers two guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits, called
the Guaranteed Return Option Plus 2008 and Highest Daily Guaranteed
Return Option, for which PALAC imposes a charge equal to 0.35%
annually, applied against the account value in the sub-accounts.
Finally, the Contract offers a guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit
for a charge of 0.35% annually, applied against the account value in
the sub-accounts.
    6. The Contract offers several optional death benefits, including
the Enhanced Beneficiary Protection Death Benefit for a charge of 0.25%
annually, the Highest Anniversary Value Death Benefit for a charge of
0.25% annually, a Combination 5% roll-up and Highest Anniversary Value
Death Benefit for a charge of 0.50% annually, and a Highest Daily Value
Death Benefit for a charge of 0.50% annually.
    7. Applicants may add other optional living and death benefits to
the Contract in the future. In addition to the optional insurance
features, the Contract offers several optional administrative features
at no additional cost (e.g., auto rebalancing and systematic
withdrawals).
    8. The Contract offers variable investment options and a companion
market-value adjustment option that is registered on Form S-3 (file no.
333-136996). At present, the Contract offers portfolios of Advanced
Series Trust (formerly, American Skandia Trust), INVESCO AIM Variable
Insurance Funds, Evergreen Variable Annuity Trust, First Defined
Portfolio Fund, Franklin Templeton Variable Insurance Products Trust,
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust, and Wells Fargo Variable Trust.
Under the Contract, Applicants reserve the right to add new underlying
funds and series, and to substitute new portfolios for existing
portfolios (subject to Commission approval).
    9. An owner choosing to annuitize under the Contract will have only
fixed annuity options available. Those fixed

annuity options include annuities offering payments for life, payments
based on joint lives, payments for life with a certain period, and
fixed payments for a certain period. The latest annuitization date is
the first day of the month coinciding with, or immediately following
the later of the annuitant's 95th birthday or the fifth annuity
anniversary.
    10. Under the Contract, PALAC will apply a Contract Credit to the
Contract owner's account value with respect to any purchase payment
made during the first six years that the Contract has been in effect.
Purchase payments made in the seventh year of the Contract and later
will not receive any Contract Credit. The amount of the Contract Credit
is determined by the year in which the purchase payment is made and the
amount of purchase payments that already have been made under the
Contract (aka ``cumulative'' purchase payments). Once purchase payments
total $100,000 or more, the Contract Credit is 8% in year one of the
Contract, 6% in year two, 4% in year three, 3% in year four, 2% in year
five, and 1% in year six. So long as cumulative purchase payments
amount to less than $100,000, the Contract Credit is 6% in year one of
the Contract, 5% in year two, 4% in year three, 3% in year four, 2% in
year five and 1% in year six. PALAC will pay Contract Credits from its
general account assets. PALAC will allocate each Contract Credit to the
variable investment options in the same proportion that the
corresponding purchase payment is allocated to such options.
    11. With respect to Contracts issued on or after the date of the
Commission order under this application, Applicants wish to recapture
the full amount of any Contract Credit under the scenarios identified
in the following sentence. Specifically, Applicants will recapture a
Contract Credit if (a) the Contract is surrendered during the free look
period, or (b) the Contract Credit was applied within 12 months prior
to death (except that PALAC will not recapture the Contract Credit to
the extent that the death benefit is equal to the account value, but
after the recovery of all or a portion of the Contract Credit, the
death benefit would be equal to less than purchase payments minus
proportional withdrawals) or (c) the Contract Credit was applied within
12 months prior to the surrender of the Contract under the medically-
related surrender provision (e.g., if the owner is diagnosed with a
``fatal illness'' and chooses to invoke this contract provision on that
basis). (The medically-related surrender feature is not available in
New York.)

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act authorizes the Commission to exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of
persons, securities or transactions, from the provisions of the 1940
Act and the rules promulgated thereunder if and to the extent that such
exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act.
    2. Applicants request that the Commission, pursuant to Section 6(c)
of the 1940 Act, issue an order to the extent necessary to permit the
recapture of the Contract Credits under the circumstances described
above. Applicants believe that the requested exemptions are appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
1940 Act.
    3. Applicants submit that the recapture of the Contract Credits
will not raise concerns under Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A)
of the 1940 Act, and Rule 22c-1 thereunder. The Contract Credits will
be recaptured only if the owner (a) exercises his/her free look right,
(b) dies within 12 months after receiving the Contract Credit (except
as described above), or (c) makes a medically-related surrender within
12 months after receiving the Contract Credit. The amounts recaptured
equal the Contract Credit provided by PALAC from its own general
account assets.
    4. Applicants argue that when PALAC recaptures the Contract Credit,
it is merely retrieving its own assets, and the owner has not been
deprived of a proportionate share of the Account's assets, because his
or her interest in the Contract Credit amount has not vested. With
respect to a Contract Credit recaptured upon the exercise of the free-
look privilege, it would be unfair to allow an owner exercising that
privilege to retain the Contract Credit under a Contract that has been
returned for a refund after a period of only a few days. If PALAC could
not recapture the Contract Credit during the free look period,
individuals could purchase a Contract with no intention of retaining
it, and simply return it for a quick profit. Applicants also note that
the Contract owner is entitled to retain any investment gain
attributable to the Contract Credit, even if the Contract Credit is
ultimately recaptured. Furthermore, the recapture of the Contract
Credit if death or a medically-related surrender occurs within 12
months after receipt of a Contract Credit is designed to provide PALAC
with a measure of protection against ``anti-selection.'' The risk here
is that an owner, with full knowledge of impending death or serious
illness, will make very large payments and thereby leave PALAC less
time to recover the cost of the Contract Credit, to PALAC's financial
detriment.
    5. Applicants submit that the provisions for recapture of the
Contract Credit does not, and any such Future Contract provisions will
not, violate Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act, and
Rule 22c-1 thereunder.
    6. The recapture of a Contract Credit could be viewed as involving
the redemption of redeemable securities for a price other than one
based on the current net asset value of an Account. Applicants state
that the recapture of the Contract Credit does not involve either of
the evils that Rule 22c-1 was intended to address, namely: (a) The
dilution of the value of outstanding redeemable securities of
registered investment companies through their sale at a price below net
asset value or redemption or repurchase at a price above it, and (b)
other unfair results, including speculative trading practices.
Applicants assert that the proposed recapture of the Contract Credit
does not pose a threat of dilution. To effect a recapture of a Contract
Credit, interests in an owner's account will be redeemed at a price
determined on the basis of the current net asset value. The amount
recaptured will equal the amount of the Contract Credit that PALAC paid
out of its general account assets. Although the owner will be entitled
to retain any investment gain attributable to a Contract Credit, the
amount of that gain will be determined on the basis of current net
asset value. Therefore, no dilution will occur upon the recapture of a
Contract Credit. Applicants also submit that the second harm that Rule
22c-1 was designed to address, namely speculative trading practices
calculated to take advantage of backward pricing, will not occur as a
result of the recapture of a Contract Credit.
    7. Applicants submit that their request for an order that applies
to the Account or any Future Accounts established by PALAC in
connection with the issuance of Contracts and Future Contracts, and
underwritten or distributed by PAD or other broker-dealers, is
appropriate in the public interest. Such an order would promote
competitiveness in the variable annuity market by eliminating the need
to file redundant exemptive applications, thereby reducing
administrative

expenses and maximizing the efficient use of Applicants' resources.
Investors would not receive any benefit or additional protection by
requiring Applicants to repeatedly seek exemptive relief that would
present no issue under the 1940 Act that has not already been addressed
in this application. Having Applicants file additional applications
would impair Applicants' ability effectively to take advantage of
business opportunities as they arise.
    8. Applicants undertake that Future Contracts funded by the Account
or by Future Accounts that seek to rely on the order issued pursuant to
the application will be substantially similar to the Contract in all
material respects.

Conclusion

    Applicants submit that their request for an order meets the
standards set out in Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act and that an order
should, therefore, be granted.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18801 Filed 8-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34506-34508]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15623]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0422; FRL-9981-04--Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New York; Determination of Attainment of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Jamestown, New York Marginal
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make
a determination that the Jamestown, New York Marginal Nonattainment
Area (Jamestown Area or Area) has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This proposed
determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data that shows the Area has monitored
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for both the 2012-2014 and
2015-2017 monitoring periods. This action does not constitute a
redesignation to attainment. The Jamestown Area will remain
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA
determines that the Jamestown Area meets the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved
maintenance plan. This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2018-0422 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS
for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three
years) to provide increased protection of public health and the
environment. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).\1\ The 2008 ozone NAAQS
retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS
set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. On May 21, 2012 (77
FR 30088), effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated as nonattainment any
area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three
most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data. The Jamestown
Area (specifically, Chautauqua County) was designated as a marginal
ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a detailed explanation of the calculation of the 3-year
8-hour average, see 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Marginal areas designated in the May 21, 2012 rule are required to
attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable deadline of July
20, 2015. See 40 CFR 51.903. On May 4, 2016, EPA determined that
complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data
from the 2012-2014 monitoring period indicated that the Jamestown Area
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by that attainment date. See 81 FR
26697.
    Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (40 CFR
51.918), if EPA also issues a determination (as it is proposing to do
here) that an area is attaining the relevant standard through a
rulemaking that includes public notice and comment (known informally as
a Clean Data Determination), the requirements for a State to submit
certain required planning SIPs related to attainment of the eight-hour
NAAQS, such as attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress
plans and contingency measures, shall be suspended. EPA's action only
suspends the requirements to submit the SIP revisions discussed
above.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For more information on the EPA's Clean Data Policy, see
https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/redesignation-and-clean-data-policy-cdp for documents such as the Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Reasonable
Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard'' (May 10, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This suspension remains in effect until such time, if ever, that
EPA (i) redesignates the area to attainment, at which time those
requirements no longer apply, or (ii) subsequently determines that the
area has violated the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these
requirements are suspended, if the State provides these submissions to
EPA for review and approval at any time, EPA is not precluded from
acting upon them. The determination of attainment is not equivalent to
a redesignation under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation
status of the Jamestown Area will remain nonattainment for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area meets
the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an
approved maintenance plan.
    Additionally, the determination of attainment is separate from, and
does not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation
determination or requirements for the Jamestown Area based on any new
or revised ozone NAAQS, and it remains in effect regardless of whether
EPA designates this Area as a nonattainment area for purposes of any
new or revised ozone NAAQS.

II. EPA's Evaluation

    For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured ambient air monitoring data. Under
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less
than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. This 3-year
average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is
less than or equal to

0.075 ppm at each monitor within the area, then the area is attaining
the NAAQS. Also, the data meets the regulatory completeness requirement
when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is
greater than or equal to 90 percent (%), and no single year has less
than 75% data completeness as determined in appendix P of 40 CFR part
50. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with
40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS).
    EPA has reviewed the complete, quality-assured, and certified ozone
ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring periods for both 2012-
2014 and 2015-2017 for the Jamestown Area. For both monitoring periods,
the design values for the Jamestown monitor in Chautauqua County are
less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and the monitor meets the data
completeness requirements (see Table 1). Based on the 2012-2014 data
from the AQS database and consistent with the requirements contained in
40 CFR part 50, EPA has concluded that this Area attained the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, complete, quality-assured, and certified
data through the 2017 ozone season demonstrate that the area continues
to attain the standard.

                                                 Table 1--Jamestown Area 2008 8-Hour Ozone Design Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012-2014                         2015-2017
                                                                                2012-2014     Average percent     2015-2017     Average percent
                               County                                    Site ID        Design value         data         Design value         data
                                                                                (ppm)         completeness        (ppm)         completeness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chautauqua.........................................................     36-013-0006            0.071               97            0.068               96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data in Table 1 are available in EPA's AQS database. The AQS
report with this data is available in the docket for this rulemaking
under docket number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0422 and available online at
www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0422.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Jamestown Area
has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This proposed determination
(informally known as a Clean Data Determination) is based upon
complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data
that show the Jamestown Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 and 2015-2017 monitoring periods.
Complete and quality assured and certified data for these periods
demonstrate that the area continues to attain the standard during both
time periods. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, if EPA's determination that
this area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard is made final, it
would suspend the requirements under CAA section 182(b)(1) for
submission of a reasonable further progress plan and ozone attainment
demonstration. In addition, such a final determination would mean the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) concerning submission of
contingency measures and any other planning SIP relating to attainment
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the
Jamestown Area continues to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Although these requirements would be suspended, EPA would not be
precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to
EPA for review and approval.
    Finalizing this determination would not constitute a redesignation
of the Jamestown Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
under CAA section 107(d)(3). This proposed determination of attainment
also does not involve approving any maintenance plan for the Jamestown
Area and does not determine that the Jamestown Area has met all the
requirements for redesignation under the CAA, including that the
attainment be due to permanent and enforceable measures. Therefore, the
designation status of the Jamestown Area will remain nonattainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA takes final
rulemaking action to determine that such Area meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make an attainment determination based on
air quality data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements and would not impose any additional
requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2018-15623 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM Date: August 30, 2004 Subject: Flumetsulam. Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) Document.

DP Barcode: D306279 PC Code: 129016 Chemical Class: Triazolopyrimidine 40 CFR § : 180.468 From: Samuel Ary, Chemist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Through: Sherrie Kinard, Chemist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

William Hazel, Branch Chief ( Acting) Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

To: Elissa Reaves, Risk Assessor Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509C) Flumetsulam Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: 306279 2 of 8 Executive Summary A chronic dietary ( food and water) risk assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCID   , Version 2.03), which uses food consumption data from the USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 to 1996 and 1998. The analysis was performed to support the tolerance reassessment eligibility decision for current uses and to support the proposed tolerance in/ on dry beans ( Petition Number: 7F4851). The chronic dietary exposure/ risk analysis was conducted using current and proposed tolerance values for corn ( forage, grain, and stover), soybean, and dry beans.

A conservative chronic dietary ( food and water) assessment was performed using DEEM FCID   . Tolerance level residues, default processing factors, 100% crop treated, and the highest estimated chronic drinking water concentration were used to conduct this Tier 1 ( unrefined) assessment. Dietary risk estimates are provided for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups. This assessment concludes that for all supported commodities, the chronic dietary exposure estimates are below the Health Effects Division's ( HED) level of concern for all population subgroups at less than 1% of the cPAD.

I. Introduction Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide. For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose ( i. e., the dose which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects). This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose ( PAD). The PAD is equivalent to the reference dose ( RfD) divided by the special Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Safety Factor.

For non cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the cPAD. HED is generally concerned when estimated cancer risk exceeds one in one million ( i. e., the risk exceeds 1 x 10 6). References which discuss chronic risk assessments in more detail are available on the EPA pesticides web site: " Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User's Guide," June 21, 2000, web link: http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 2000/ July/ Day 12/ 6061. pdf; or see SOP 99.6 ( 8/ 20/ 99).

II. Residue Information Flumetsulam, N( 2,6 difluorophenyl) 5 methyl( 1,2,4) triazolo[ 1,5a] pyrimidine 2 sulfonamide, is a herbicide in the triazolopyrimidine chemical class. The mode of action of flumetsulam is similar to the sulfonylurea herbicides, which are acetolactate synthase ( ALS) inhibitors.

Tolerances have been established under 40 CFR § 180.468 for residues of flumetsulam in/ on field corn ( forage, grain, and stover) and soybean at 0.05 ppm. A tolerance of 0.05 ppm for dry beans is also being proposed. The nature of residues in corn and soybeans is adequately delineated based on acceptable plant metabolism studies. The HED Metabolism Committee concluded that the residue of concern resulting from the uses on field corn and soybeans is flumetsulam per se Flumetsulam Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: 306279 3 of 8 ( N. Dodd, HED Metabolism Committee Memo, 4/ 16/ 93 and N. Dodd, Metabolism Committee Memo, 4/ 26/ 93). Plant metabolism studies for dry beans have not been submitted; however, metabolism data from soybeans may be translated to dry beans because of the similarities between the two crops.

The HED Metabolism Committee has not determined the residue of concern in livestock; however, based on the submitted data, the nature of the residue in livestock ( goats and hens) is adequately defined because no detectable residues of flumetsulam per se were found in feed items.

A summary of the flumetsulam tolerance reassessment for field corn and soybeans and the assessment of the proposed tolerance for dry beans is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Tolerance Summary for Flumetsulam.

Commodity Established/ Proposed Tolerance ( ppm) Recommended Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( correct commodity definition)

Corn, field, forage 0.05 ( established) 0.05 None Corn, field, grain 0.05 ( established) 0.05 None Corn, field, stover 0.05 ( established) 0.05 None Soybean 0.05 ( established) 0.05 None Bean, dry 0.05 ( proposed) 0.05 None III. Drinking Water Data The values used in the dietary risk assessment were provided by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( EFED) in the following memo: " Drinking Water Assessment for Flumetsulam for Uses on Field Corn and Soybeans" ( J. Lin and S. Syslo, D301361, 5/ 19/ 04). Water residues were incorporated in the DEEM FCID   into the food categories " water, direct, all sources" and " water, indirect, all sources".

The estimated drinking water concentrations from surface water sources were calculated using Tier II PRZM ( Pesticide Root Zone Model) and EXAMS ( Exposure Analysis Modeling System). Based on the modeling results for surface water derived drinking water, the Mississippi corn scenario predicts the highest one in ten year peak concentration of 2.03 ppb, whereas the North Dakota corn scenario gives the highest one in ten year annual mean concentration of 0.59 ppb, and overall annual mean concentration of 0.34 ppb.

The estimated ground water concentrations were calculated using the Tier I SCI GROW ( Screening Concentration In Ground Water) model. The estimated chronic drinking water concentration from ground water sources is 0.823 ppb. The highest chronic drinking water concentration ( 0.823 ppb) was used for the dietary analysis.

IV. DEEM FCID   Program and Consumption Information Flumetsulam Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: 306279 4 of 8 A chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted for flumetsulam using DEEM FCID   , Version 2.03, which incorporates consumption data from USDA's CSFII, 1994 1996 and 1998. The 1994 96, 98 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non consecutive survey days. Foods " as consumed" ( e. g., apple pie) are linked to EPAdefined food commodities ( e. g. apples, peeled fruit  cooked; fresh or N/ S; baked; or wheat flour  cooked; fresh or N/ S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ ARS and EPA. For chronic exposure assessments, consumption data are averaged for the entire U. S. population and within population subgroups. Based on analysis of the 1994 96, 98 CSFII consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: the general U. S. population, all infants ( less than 1 year old), children 1 2, children 3 5, children 6 12, youth 13 19, adults 20 49, females 13 49, and adults 50+ years old.

For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or foodform ( e. g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/ food form to produce a residue intake estimate. The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/ food form is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/ food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure. Exposure is expressed in mg/ kg body weight/ day and as a percent of the cPAD. This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

V. Toxicological Information On March 24, 1993, the HED RfD/ Peer Review Committee evaluated the toxicology database for flumetsulam and selected Reference Doses ( RfDs) and toxicological endpoints for acute and chronic dietary exposure risk assessments ( G. Ghali, RfD/ Peer Review Committee Memo, 3/ 24/ 93). There are no studies that identify an acute hazard based on toxic effects observed following a single oral exposure ( dose) of flumetsulam. Therefore, a dose and endpoint are not proposed for the general population including infants and children or females 13 49 years of age. Flumetsulam has been classified as a " Group E" pesticide ( evidence of non carcinogenicity to humans). The toxicity endpoints pertinent for human risk assessment are summarized below in Table 2 ( E. Reaves, D306277, 8/ 31/ 04).

Table 2. Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Flumetsulam.

Exposure Scenario Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Special FQPA SF* and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Endpoint for Risk Assessment Acute Dietary ( Females 13 50 years of age) Not applicable. No hazard identified. Flumetsulam Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: 306279 Table 2. Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Flumetsulam.

Exposure Scenario Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) Special FQPA SF* and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Endpoint for Risk Assessment 5 of 8 Acute Dietary ( General population including infants and children) Not applicable. No hazard identified.

Chronic Dietary ( All populations) NOAEL= 100 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 Chronic RfD = 1 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 1 cPAD = chronic RfD FQPA SF = 1 mg/ kg/ day Chronic feeding, dog LOAEL = 500 mg/ kg/ day based on renal inflammatory and atrophic changes secondary to renal calculi and hepatic effects ( inflammation, focal necrosis, biliary stasis)

Cancer ( oral, dermal, inhalation) Flumetsulam is classified as Group E ( Evidence of non carcinogenicity for humans) ( 6/ 23/ 93). Not mutagenic.

UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = Special FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose, RfD = reference dose.

VI. Results/ Discussion As stated above, for a chronic assessment, HED is concerned when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the cPAD. The DEEM FCID   analysis estimates the dietary exposure of the U. S. population and various population subgroups. The chronic dietary exposure analysis results reported in Table 3 for the general U. S. population, all infants ( less than 1 year old), children 1 2, children 3 5, children 6 12, youth 13 19, females 13 49, adults 20 49, and adults 50+ years. The resulting food exposure estimates are below HED's level of concern for all population subgroups, less than 1% of the cPAD.

Table 3. Summary of Chronic Dietary ( food and water) Exposure and Risk for Flumetsulam.

Population Subgroup cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD General U. S. Population 1 0.000113 less than 1 All Infants ( less than 1 year old) 0.000219 less than 1 Children 1 2 years old 0.000223 less than 1 Children 3 5 years old 0.000244 less than 1 Children 6 12 years old 0.000181 less than 1 Youth 13 19 years old 0.000135 less than 1 Adults 20 49 year old 0.000094 less than 1 Flumetsulam Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: 306279 Table 3. Summary of Chronic Dietary ( food and water) Exposure and Risk for Flumetsulam.

Population Subgroup cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD 6 of 8 Adults 50+ years old 0.000066 less than 1 Females 13 49 year old 0.000092 less than 1 VII. Conclusions A chronic dietary ( food and water) risk assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCID   , Version 2.03), which uses food consumption data from the USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 1996 and 1998. The analysis was performed to support the tolerance reassessment eligibility decision for current uses and to support the proposed tolerance in/ on dry beans ( Petition Number: 7F4851). The chronic dietary exposure/ risk analysis was conducted using current and proposed tolerance values for corn ( forage, grain, and stover), soybean, and dry beans. Also, default processing factors, 100% crop treated for all commodities, and the highest estimated chronic drinking water concentration were used to conduct this Tier 1 ( unrefined) assessment.

This assessment concludes that for all supported commodities, the chronic dietary exposure estimates are below HED's level of concern for all population subgroups at less than 1% of the cPAD.

VI. List of Attachments Attachment 1. Chronic Residue Input File. Attachment 2. Chronic Results File. Flumetsulam Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: 306279 7 of 8 RDI: S. Ary ( 8/ 24/ 04); S. Kinard ( 8/ 27/ 04); W. Hazel ( 8/ 30/ 04).

Attachment 1. Chronic Food Residue Input File.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 2.00 DEEM FCID Chronic analysis for FLUMETSULAM 1994 98 data Residue file: C:\ Documents and Settings\ sary\ Desktop\ Flumetsulam\ flumetsulam. chronic. R98 Adjust. # 2 NOT used Analysis Date 08 30 2004 Residue file dated: 08 30 2004/ 17: 14: 27/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD) = 1 mg/ kg bw/ day Comment: Food and Water  Food Crop Residue Adj. Factors Comment EPA Code Grp Food Name ( ppm) # 1 # 2        06030300 6C Bean, black, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06030320 6C Bean, broad, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06030340 6C Bean, cowpea, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06030350 6C Bean, great northern, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06030360 6C Bean, kidney, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06030380 6C Bean, lima, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06030390 6C Bean, mung, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06030400 6C Bean, navy, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06030410 6C Bean, pink, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06030420 6C Bean, pinto, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001200 15 Corn, field, flour 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001201 15 Corn, field, flour babyfood 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001210 15 Corn, field, meal 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001211 15 Corn, field, meal babyfood 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001220 15 Corn, field, bran 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001230 15 Corn, field, starch 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001231 15 Corn, field, starch babyfood 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001240 15 Corn, field, syrup 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001241 15 Corn, field, syrup babyfood 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001250 15 Corn, field, oil 0.050000 1.000 1.000 15001251 15 Corn, field, oil babyfood 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06003470 6 Soybean, seed 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06003480 6 Soybean, flour 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06003481 6 Soybean, flour babyfood 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06003490 6 Soybean, soy milk 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06003491 6 Soybean, soy milk babyfood or in 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06003500 6 Soybean, oil 0.050000 1.000 1.000 06003501 6 Soybean, oil babyfood 0.050000 1.000 1.000 86010000 O Water, direct, all sources 0.000823 1.000 1.000 86020000 O Water, indirect, all sources 0.000823 1.000 1.000 Flumetsulam Dietary Exposure Assessment DP Barcode: 306279 8 of 8 Attachment 2. Chronic Results File.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 2.00 DEEM FCID Chronic analysis for FLUMETSULAM ( 1994 98 data) Residue file name: C:\ Documents and Settings\ sary\ Desktop\ Flumetsulam\ flumetsulam. chronic. R98 Adjustment factor # 2 NOT used. Analysis Date 08 30 2004/ 17: 14: 54 Residue file dated: 08 30 2004/ 17: 14: 27/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD, Chronic) = 1 mg/ kg bw/ day COMMENT 1: Food and Water =============================================================================== Total exposure by population subgroup

Total Exposure  Population mg/ kg Percent of Subgroup body wt/ day Rfd    U. S. Population ( total) 0.000113 0.0%

U. S. Population ( spring season) 0.000114 0.0% U. S. Population ( summer season) 0.000117 0.0% U. S. Population ( autumn season) 0.000110 0.0% U. S. Population ( winter season) 0.000110 0.0%

Northeast region 0.000098 0.0% Midwest region 0.000118 0.0% Southern region 0.000113 0.0% Western region 0.000120 0.0%

Hispanics 0.000139 0.0% Non hispanic whites 0.000108 0.0% Non hispanic blacks 0.000122 0.0% Non hisp/ non white/ non black 0.000112 0.0%

All infants (< 1 year) 0.000219 0.0% Nursing infants 0.000070 0.0% Non nursing infants 0.000275 0.0% Children 1 6 yrs 0.000232 0.0% Children 7 12 yrs 0.000175 0.0%

Females 13 19 ( not preg or nursing) 0.000118 0.0% Females 20+ ( not preg or nursing) 0.000077 0.0% Females 13 50 yrs 0.000101 0.0% Females 13+ ( preg/ not nursing) 0.000097 0.0% Females 13+ ( nursing) 0.000105 0.0%

Males 13 19 yrs 0.000152 0.0% Males 20+ yrs 0.000091 0.0% Seniors 55+ 0.000064 0.0%

Children 1 2 yrs 0.000223 0.0% Children 3 5 yrs 0.000244 0.0% Children 6 12 yrs 0.000181 0.0% Youth 13 19 yrs 0.000135 0.0% Adults 20 49 yrs 0.000094 0.0% Adults 50+ yrs 0.000066 0.0% Females 13 49 yrs 0.000092 0.0%


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27251-27255]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11451]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0079; FRL-9927-59-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revision To Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Storage
Tanks and Transport Vessels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a Texas
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for control of volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from degassing of storage tanks,
transport vessels and marine vessels. The revision reformats the
existing requirement to comply with current rule writing standards,
adds additional control options for owner/operators to use when
complying, clarifies the monitoring and testing requirements of the
rule, and makes non-substantive changes to VOC control provisions that
apply in the Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) nonattainment area (Hardin,
Jefferson and Orange Counties), four counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth
(DFW) nonattainment area (Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties),
El Paso County, and the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) nonattainment
area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty,
Montgomery and Waller Counties).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 13, 2015 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by June 12, 2015. If EPA
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0079, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Mr. Robert M. Todd at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-
0079. 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 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, 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.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert M. Todd,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact
Mr. Todd or Mr. Bill Deese<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. CAA and SIPs

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop
and submit to EPA a SIP to ensure that state air quality meets National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These ambient standards
currently address six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each
federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air
pollution at its point of origin through air pollution regulations and
control strategies. EPA approved SIP regulations and control strategies
are federally enforceable. States revise the SIP as needed and submit
revisions to EPA for approval.
    Under Section 182(b)(2) of the Act, major stationary sources and
sources covered by control technique guidelines are required to
implement RACT in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas.

B. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Degassing Emissions

    Volatile organic compounds are an ``ozone precursor,'' as they
react with oxygen, nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sunlight to
form ozone. Controlling sources of VOC and NOX emissions can
lower ozone levels in the ambient air. VOC degassing emissions occur
when VOC storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels are vented
and prepared for cleaning, maintenance or change of service.
Requirements to control degassing emissions, use low-leaking tank
fittings on some control options, monitor control effectiveness and
report compliance from degassing operations were implemented in HGB and
BPA (62 FR 27964, May 22, 1997). In DFW and El Paso County, these rules
were adopted as contingency measures under the 1-hour ozone standard
(62 FR 27964). These VOC requirements for HGB were later updated (75 FR
15348, March 29, 2010 and 78 FR 19599, April 2, 2013). For Collin,
Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties in the DFW nonattainment area, the
contingency measures were not triggered or otherwise implemented under
the 1-hour ozone standard, and were left in place (applying only to
Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties) as contingency measures
under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (74 FR 1903, January 14, 2009).
Texas implemented these contingency measure rules for Collin, Dallas,
Denton and Tarrant Counties on May 21, 2011 (35 TexReg 4268, May 21,
2010) when the area failed to meet the 1997 8-hour standard by the
moderate area attainment date of June 15, 2010.

C. SIP Revision Submitted on February 18, 2011

    A SIP submission revising the rules for controlling VOC emissions
from degassing of storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels
was adopted by Texas on January 26, 2011, and submitted to us on
February 18, 2011. The revisions submitted by Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) apply to Brazoria, Chambers, Collin,
Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris,
Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and Waller Counties.
    The revision repeals Title 30, Chapter 115 of the Texas
Administrative Code (30 TAC 115) sections 115.541, 115.542 and 115.545;
adds new sections 115.540-115.542 and 115.545; and amends existing
sections 115.543, 115.544, 115.546, 115.547 and 115.549. The revision
(1) reformats the existing rule to simplify and clarify rule
requirements; (2) modifies VOC control requirements in Brazoria,
Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston,
Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and
Waller Counties; (3) makes changes to provide additional flexibility
for affected owners and operators allowing for the use of alternative
control options; and (4) makes non-substantive changes to VOC control
provisions that apply in Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El
Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty,
Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and Waller Counties.
    Also, the regulation continues to apply to El Paso County on a
contingency basis; i.e., the control requirements of the rule will not
apply to affected owner/operators in El Paso County unless the agency
determines regulation is necessary as a result of a failure to attain
the NAAQS for ozone by the attainment deadline or the State fails to
demonstrate reasonable further progress in the El Paso County according
to the requirements of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, section
172(c)(9).
    This revision clarifies that degassing emissions of storage tanks
and transport vessels for sources in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and
Tarrant Counties are required to meet the control require-ments of the
rule at this time. The requirements do not apply to storage tanks or
vessels in Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall or Wise
Counties.\1\ When the DFW area was reclassified as a Serious ozone
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard (75 FR 79302, December
20, 2010) the TCEQ published the notice requiring compliance with
degassing requirements in DFW by May 21, 2011 (35 TexReg 4268, May 21,
2010.). This action clarifies that the degassing requirements are in
effect for Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm, known as the 2008 ozone
standard. On April 30, 2012, the EPA promulgated designations under
the 2008 ozone standard (77 FR 30088) and in that action, the EPA
designated 10 counties in the DFW area as a Moderate ozone
nonattainment area: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman,
Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise. The EPA's actions here with
respect to DFW, only address the counties which comprised the DFW
nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the HGB area, the rule revisions maintain the existing
requirement that VOC vapors generated during degassing operations be
routed to a device that maintains a control efficiency of at least 90%
for the affected sources.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The HGB area is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008).
Under the 2008 ozone standard the HGB area is classified as a
Marginal ozone nonattainment area (77 FR 30088).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For DFW, HGB and BPA, the revisions add an explicit requirement
that any flare used for control must be designed and operated according
to 40 CFR 60.18(b)-(f) as amended through December 22, 2008, and that
the flare must be lit at all times VOC vapors are routed to the device
during degassing operations. The TCEQ added this requirement to clarify
the intent of the rule is for both the flare flame and the

pilot to the flare be lit at all times VOC vapors are routed to the
device.
    The SIP revision submitted by Texas may be accessed online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0642.

D. CAA Requirements for the SIP Revision

    The primary requirements pertaining to the SIP revision submitted
by Texas are found in CAA sections 110(l) and 182(b)(2). CAA section
110(l) requires that a SIP revision submitted to EPA be adopted after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) also requires that
we not approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section
182(b)(2) of the Act requires States to adopt Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) rules for stationary sources of VOCs in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above.

II. EPA's Evaluation

    The requirements to control degassing emissions, use low-leaking
tank fittings on some control options, monitor control effectiveness
and report compliance from degassing operations were previously
implemented in HGB and BPA (62 FR 27966, May 22, 1997). The
requirements were later revised for HGB (75 FR 15348, March 29, 2010
and 78 FR 19599, April 2, 2013). For DFW, we previously approved the
rules as a contingency measure to be implemented by Texas if the area
failed to reach attainment under the 1-hour ozone nonattainment
standards (May 22, 1997, 62 FR 27964). We later approved these same
rules as contingency measures to be implemented in the four counties
comprising of the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area if DFW did not reach
attainment under the 8-hour ozone nonattainment standard (January 14,
2009, 74 FR 1903). Because the nine counties in the DFW 8-hour
nonattainment area failed to meet the attainment date, Texas
implemented the contingency measure rules for Collin, Dallas, Denton
and Tarrant Counties on May 21, 2011. For the El Paso area we initially
approved these rules as a contingency measure on May 22, 1997. (62 FR
27966, May 22, 1997).
    Under Section 182(b)(2) of the Act, Major stationary sources and
sources covered by control technique guidelines are required to
implement RACT in moderate ozone and above ozone nonattainment areas.
At the time these rules were adopted by TCEQ, the four subject areas
were all moderate or above nonattainment for the 1 hour ozone standard.
    The VOC degassing rules control emissions from three source types:
Stationary storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels. The
latter two source types are not stationary sources and are therefore
not subject to RACT requirements. Storage tanks are covered by Control
Technique Guidelines (CTGs). As a result, RACT must be implemented for
stationary storage tanks. If there were not a CTG for storage tanks
emissions, any major source storage tanks would have had to implement
RACT to control its emissions including degassing emissions.
    The CTGs for storage tanks provide recommendations for types of
controls including the types of seals necessary to reduce emissions
from tanks. The CTGs, however, do not include a recommendation that
emissions during degassing of the tanks be controlled. Texas has
adopted rules based on the CTG recommendations. See 30 TAC 115, Storage
of Volatile Organic Compounds, sections 115.110, 115.512-117 and
115.119. These rules have previously been approved as RACT and finding
has been affirmed as RACT on a number of occasions. The rules Texas has
adopted to control degassing emissions are in addition to the RACT
level of control recommended by the CTG. The rules were adopted by TCEQ
to address rate of progress requirements in HGB and to meet contingency
measure requirements in DFW and El Paso County. Therefore, it is
appropriate for the degassing controls in El Paso to remain as a
contingency measure and changes to the degassing rules will not
interfere with whether RACT is being implemented in these areas.
    Moreover, our evaluation finds that the revision to the Texas SIP
improves the rules by rewording them so that their intent is
unambiguous, clarifying the compliance monitoring and reporting
required for affected sources, and does not result in a change in the
VOC emission reductions previously approved for degassing of storage
tanks, transport vessels and marine vessel in DFW, HGB, BPA and El Paso
County.
    In our April 2, 2013 approval of Texas's revisions to the SIP for
the HGB 1997 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area (78 FR 19599), we found
that the Texas SIP met the RACT requirements for CTG and major Non-CTG
sources of VOC in this nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort
Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller Counties) under
the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. We are not altering this finding in this
action.
    We found that the Texas SIP met the RACT requirements for CTG and
major Non-CTG sources of VOC in DFW in our approval of Texas VOC rules
for RACT (64 FR 3841). We are not altering this finding in this rule.
    Also, the Degassing or Cleaning VOC control requirements approved
in the DFW and El Paso County SIPs as contingency measures, for the 8-
hour Ozone attainment demonstration, are not altered in this action
(January 14, 2009, 74 FR 1903). These measures were triggered in DFW in
2010 and became effective May 21, 2010 (see the Texas Register, 35
TexReg 4268, dated May 21, 2010).
    For additional information please see our Technical Support
Document which may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, Docket
No. EPA-R06-2010-0642.

III. Final Action

    We are approving a Texas SIP revision for control of VOC emissions
from storage tank, transport vessel and marine vessel degassing
operations adopted on January 26, 2011, and submitted on February 18,
2011. Specifically, we are approving revisions to 30 TAC 115 at
sections 115.540-115.547 and 115.549. The revisions (1) reformat the
existing rule to simplify and clarify rule requirements; (2) modify VOC
control requirements in Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El
Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty,
Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and Waller Counties; (3) make changes to
provide additional flexibility for affected owners and operators
allowing for the use of alternative control options; and (4) make non-
substantive changes to VOC control provisions that apply in Brazoria,
Chambers, Collin, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston,
Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Orange, Tarrant and
Waller Counties.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse
comments are received. This rule will be effective on July 13, 2015
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by
June 12, 2015. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish
a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the

public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive
relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.4, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Final Action
section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    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. 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).
    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 appropriate circuit by July 13, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: May 4, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270(c), the table titled ``EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended by:
0
a. Under ``Subchapter F--Miscellaneous Industrial Sources'', revising
the title for ``Division 3'';
0
b. Adding, in sequential order, the entry for Section 115.540; and
0
c. Revising the entries for Sections 115.541 through 115.547 and
115.549.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
         State citation               Title/subject          approval/     EPA approval date      Explanation
                                                          submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Chapter 115 (Reg 5)--Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Subchapter F--Miscellaneous Industrial Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Division 3: Degassing of Storage Tanks, Transport Vessels, and Marine Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 115.540................  Applicability and             1/26/2011  5/13/15 [Insert
                                  Definitions.                             Federal Register
                                                                           citation].
Section 115.541................  Emission Specifications       1/26/2011  5/13/15 [Insert
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].
Section 115.542................  Control Requirements...       1/26/2011  5/13/15 [Insert
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].
Section 115.543................  Alternate control             1/26/2011  5/13/15 [Insert
                                  Requirements.                            Federal Register
                                                                           citation].
Section 115.544................  Inspection, Monitoring,       1/26/2011  5/13/15 [Insert
                                  and Testing                              Federal Register
                                  Requirements.                            citation].
Section 115.545................  Approved Test Methods..       1/26/2011  5/13/15 [Insert
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].
Section 115.546................  Recordkeeping and             1/26/2011  5/13/15 [Insert
                                  Notification                             Federal Register
                                  Requirements.                            citation].
Section 115.547................  Exemptions.............       1/26/2011  5/13/15 [Insert
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].
Section 115.549................  Compliance Schedules...       1/26/2011  5/13/15 [Insert
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-11451 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P