Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5433

personnel from the IRS and Treasury

Department participated in their

development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Adoption of Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is

amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 1 continues to read in part as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.401(b)–1 is amended

by:1. Revising paragraphs (b)(3), (c), and

(d)(1)(iv).

2. Adding paragraph (d)(1)(v).

The addition and revisions read as

follows:

§ 1.401(b)–1 Certain retroactive changes in

plan.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) A plan provision designated by the

Commissioner, at the Commissioner’s

discretion, as a disqualifying provision

that either—

(i) Results in the failure of the plan to

satisfy the qualification requirements of

the Internal Revenue Code by reason of

a change in those requirements; or (ii) Is integral to a qualification

requirement of the Internal Revenue

Code that has been changed. (c) Special rules applicable to

disqualifying provisions—(1) Absence of

plan provision. For purposes of

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section,

a disqualifying provision includes the

absence from a plan of a provision

required by, or, if applicable, integral to

the applicable change to the

qualification requirements of the

Internal Revenue Code, if the plan was

in effect on the date the change became

effective with respect to the plan. (2) Method of designating

disqualifying provisions. The

Commissioner may designate a plan

provision as a disqualifying provision

pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this

section only in revenue rulings, notices,

and other guidance published in the

Internal Revenue Bulletin. See

§ 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter. (3) Authority to impose limitations. In

the case of a provision that has been

designated as a disqualifying provision

by the Commissioner pursuant to

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the

Commissioner may impose limits and

provide additional rules regarding the

amendments that may be made with

respect to that disqualifying provision

during the remedial amendment period.

The Commissioner may provide

guidance in revenue rulings, notices,

and other guidance published in the

Internal Revenue Bulletin. See

§ 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter. (d) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) In the case of a disqualifying

provision described in paragraph

(b)(3)(i) of this section, the date on

which the change effected by an

amendment to the Internal Revenue

Code became effective with respect to

the plan; or (v) In the case of a disqualifying

provision described in paragraph

(b)(3)(ii) of this section, the first day on

which the plan was operated in

accordance with such provision, as

amended, unless another time is

specified by the Commissioner in

revenue rulings, notices, and other

guidance published in the Internal

Revenue Bulletin. See § 601.601(d)(2) of

this chapter.

§ 1.401(b)–1T [Removed]

Par. 3. Section 1.401(b)–1T is

removed.

John M. Dalrymple,

Acting Deputy Commissioner of Internal

Revenue.

Approved: January 19, 2000.

Jonathan Talisman,

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 00–1893 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–4

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA236–0204; FRL–6528–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision;

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP). The revisions concern Rule 207

(Review of New or Modified Sources)

from the Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD),

which is being revised to add an

emission offsets exemption for pollution

control projects that are mandated by

District, state, or federal regulation. This

approval action will incorporate the

revised rule into the federally approved

SIP. The intended effect of approving

this rule is to regulate emissions from

stationary sources of air pollution

subject to District new source review

(NSR) regulation in accordance with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). EPA

is finalizing the approval of these

revisions into the California SIP under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 4,

2000 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse comments by March 6,

2000. If EPA receives such comment, it

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be

submitted to Roger Kohn at the Region

IX office listed below. Copies of the rule

revision and EPA’s Technical Support

Document (TSD) with the Agency’s

evaluation of the rule are available for

public inspection at EPA’s Region 9

office during normal business hours.

Copies of the submitted rule revisions

are also available for inspection at the

following locations:

Permits Office (AIR–3), Air Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud

Court, Monterey, CA 93940.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Kohn, Permits Office (AIR–3), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1238, E-mail:

kohn.roger@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule being approved into the

California SIP is MBUAPCD Rule 207,

Review of New or Modified Sources.

II. Background

The CAA requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) and section 110(l) of

the Act provide that each

5434 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

implementation plan or revision to an

implementation plan submitted by a

State must be adopted after reasonable

notice and public hearing. Section

172(c)(7) of the Act provides that plan

provisions for nonattainment areas shall

meet the applicable provisions of

section 110(a)(2).

The rule was adopted by the District

Board of Directors on September 15,

1999. The rule was subsequently

submitted to EPA by the California Air

Resources Board to EPA as a proposed

revision to the California SIP on October

29, 1999.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

MBUAPCD submitted Rule 207 for

adoption into the applicable SIP. This

rule is intended to replace the existing

SIP rule of the same number and title.

MBUAPCD’s most recent submittal of

Rule 207 contains the following changes

from the current SIP:

• A new provision has been added

that provides an exemption from the

offset provisions of the rule for projects

in which an emission increase results

from the installation of control

equipment pursuant to District, state, or

federal regulations.

• The rule has been modified to

require an opportunity for public

comment on projects using the new

exemption.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rule

and has determined that it is consistent

with the CAA, EPA regulations, and

EPA policy. In correspondence with the

District, EPA informed MBUAPCD that

this rule change would be an acceptable

SIP revision, provided that the District

made a commitment to revise its

Maintenance Plan if new air quality data

indicates that the District has violated or

may violate the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This

correspondence, along with the rule

adoption resolution in which the

MBUAPCD board of directors makes

this commitment, can be found in the

docket for this rulemaking. Therefore,

MBUAPCD Rule 207 is being approved

under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as

meeting the requirements of section

110(a) and parts C and D.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes

and replaces Executive Orders 12612,

Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership.

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies

that have federalism implications’’ is

defined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that 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.’’ Under Executive

Order 13132, EPA may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5435

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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 rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by April 4, 2000.

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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compound.

Dated: January 7, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (270)(i)(B) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(270) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 207, amended on September

15, 1999.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–2183 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6532–7]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,

requires that the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list

of national priorities among the known

releases or threatened releases of

hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants throughout the United

States. The National Priorities List

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is

intended primarily to guide the

Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining

which sites warrant further

investigation to assess the nature and

extent of public health and

environmental risks associated with the

site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may

be appropriate. This rule adds 10 new

sites to the NPL; all to the General

Superfund Section of the NPL.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for

this amendment to the NCP March 6,

2000.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the

Headquarters and Regional dockets, as

well as further details on what these

dockets contain, see Section II,

‘‘Availability of Information to the

Public’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603–8835,

State, Tribal and Site Identification

Center, Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response (mail code 5204G),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

Ariel Rios Building; 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20460, or

the Superfund Hotline, phone (800)