Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60141

(e) Determination of use during

periods of out-of-residence care. If a

taxpayer has become physically or

mentally incapable of self-care and the

taxpayer sells or exchanges property

that the taxpayer owned and used as the

taxpayer’s principal residence for a

period aggregating at least 1 year during

the 5-year period preceding the sale or

exchange, the taxpayer is treated as

using the property as the taxpayer’s

principal residence for any period of

time during the 5-year period in which

the taxpayer owns the property and

resides in any facility (including a

nursing home) licensed by a State or

political subdivision to care for an

individual in the taxpayer’s condition.

(f) Sales of remainder interests—(1) In

general. A taxpayer may elect to have

the section 121 exclusion apply to gain

from the sale or exchange of a remainder

interest in the taxpayer’s principal

residence.

(2) Limitations—(i) Sale or exchange

of any other interest. If a taxpayer elects

to exclude gain from the sale or

exchange of a remainder interest in the

taxpayer’s principal residence, the

section 121 exclusion will not apply to

a sale or exchange of any other interest

in the residence that is sold or

exchanged separately.

(ii) Sales to related parties. Paragraph

(f)(1) of this section will not apply to a

sale or exchange by any person who

bears a relationship to the taxpayer

which is described in section 267(b) or

707(b).

(3) Election. The taxpayer makes the

election under this paragraph (f) by

filing a return for the taxable year of the

sale or exchange that does not include

the gain from the sale or exchange of the

remainder interest in the taxpayer’s

gross income.

(g) No exclusion for expatriates. The

section 121 exclusion will not apply to

any sale or exchange by an individual

if the treatment provided by section

877(a)(1) (relating to the treatment of

expatriates) applies to the individual.

(h) Election to have section not apply.

A taxpayer may elect to have the section

121 exclusion not apply to a sale or

exchange of property. The taxpayer

makes the election by filing a return for

the taxable year of the sale or exchange

that includes the gain from the sale or

exchange of the taxpayer’s principal

residence in the taxpayer’s gross

income.

(i) Residences acquired in rollovers

under section 1034. If a taxpayer

acquires property (section 121 property)

in a transaction that qualifies under

section 1034 for the nonrecognition of

gain realized on the sale or exchange of

another property (section 1034 property)

and later sells or exchanges the section

121 property, in determining the period

of the taxpayer’s ownership and use of

the sold or exchanged section 121

property, the taxpayer may include the

periods that the taxpayer owned and

used the section 1034 property as the

taxpayer’s principal residence (and each

prior residence taken into account

under section 1223(7) in determining

the holding period of the 1034

property).

§ 1.121–5 [Removed]

Par. 3. Section 1.121–5 is removed.

Par. 4. Section 1.1398–3 is added to

read as follows:

§ 1.1398–3 Treatment of section 121

exclusion in individuals’ title 11 cases.

(a) Scope. This section applies to

cases under chapter 7 or chapter 11 of

title 11 of the United States Code, but

only if the debtor is an individual.

(b) Definition and rules of general

application. For purposes of this

section, section 121 exclusion means

the exclusion of gain from the sale or

exchange of a debtor’s principal

residence available under section 121.

(c) Estate succeeds to exclusion upon

commencement of case. The bankruptcy

estate succeeds to and takes into

account the section 121 exclusion with

respect to the property transferred into

the estate.

(d) Effective date. This section is

applicable for sales or exchanges that

occur on or after the date these

regulations are published as final

regulations in the Federal Register.

Robert E. Wenzel,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 00–25482 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA 4053; FRL–6883–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

Approval of VOC and NOX RACT

Determinations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the Commonwealth of

Virginia’s State Implementation Plan

(SIP) which would establish reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

requirements for 16 major sources of

volatile organic compound (VOC) and/

or nitrogen oxide (NOX)emissions.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before November 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to Makeba Morris, Chief, Permits

and Technical Assessment Branch,

Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 and

at the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray

Chalmers, at (215) 814–2061, or by email at chalmers.ray@epa.gov. Please

note that while questions and requests

for the Technical Support Document

(TSD) prepared in support of this

rulemaking may be submitted via email, any comments on the proposed

action must be submitted, in writing, to

the Region III address as indicated

above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information Regarding

RACT Requirements

Pursuant to sections 182 and 184 of

the Clean Air Act (CAA), States are

required to implement RACT for major

sources of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) and/or nitrogen oxides (NOX)

emissions which are: (1) Located in

those areas which have not attained the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

for ozone (ozone nonattainment areas)

which are designated in 40 CFR part 81

as having moderate or above

nonattainment problems; or (2) located

in the ozone transport region (OTR),

which was established by section 184 of

the CAA. A source is defined as major

if its VOC and/or NOX emissions exceed

specified levels, defined in sections 182

and 184 of the CAA, which vary

depending upon the ozone air quality

designation of the area where the source

is located, and on whether or not the

source is located in the OTR.

Pursuant to the CAA’s requirements,

the Commonwealth of Virginia (the

Commonwealth) submitted revisions to

its SIP consisting of regulations

pertaining to RACT requirements for

major NOX and VOC sources located in

ozone nonattainment areas and in its

portion of the OTR. The

Commonwealth’s regulation pertaining

to RACT requirements for major NOX

sources, for which EPA granted

60142 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules

conditional limited approval on April

28, 1999 (64 FR 22789), provides that

sources with steam generating units,

process heaters, or gas turbines either

accept specified RACT limits for these

units or request case-by-case RACT

determinations for them. The regulation

also provides that sources with other

types of emission units must obtain

case-by-case RACT determinations for

those units.

The Commonwealth’s regulation

pertaining to RACT requirements for

major VOC sources, which EPA

approved on March 12, 1997 (62 FR

11332), provides that subject sources

obtain case-by-case RACT

determinations.

When EPA granted conditional

limited approval of the

Commonwealth’s RACT regulation

applying to major NOX sources, EPA

established the condition that the

Commonwealth was required to submit

its case-by-case RACT determinations

for NOX sources to EPA for

incorporation into the Commonwealth’s

SIP.

II. Description of the Commonwealth’s

RACT SIP Submittals

The Commonwealth established caseby-case RACT requirements for sources

which had requested RACT

determinations pursuant to the

provisions of the Commonwealth’s

RACT regulations. This proposed

rulemaking action pertains to the

Commonwealth’s request that EPA

revise the Commonwealth’s SIP to

include the Commonwealth’s case-bycase RACT SIP submittals for 16

sources. The Commonwealth’s

submittals consist of operating permits

and/or consent agreements which

contain the RACT requirements for each

source, as well as supporting

documentation.

The 16 sources for which the

Commonwealth submitted case-by-case

RACT determinations, their types and

locations, the pollutants they emit for

which RACT requirements are

established, and the dates of the

Commonwealth’s RACT SIP submittals

for them are listed in the table found in

Section III below, entitled, ‘‘Proposed

RACT SIP Revision Approvals.’’ The

emission limitations and other RACT

requirements for each of these sources

are discussed in the TSD prepared by

EPA in support of this proposed action.

The TSD is included in the

administrative record for this

rulemaking action, and is available

upon request from the EPA Region III

office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this document.

III. Proposed RACT SIP Revision

Approvals

EPA is proposing to approve the

Commonwealth of Virginia’s RACT SIP

revisions for the sources listed in the

table, below:

VIRGINIA—VOC AND NOX RACT DETERMINATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL SOURCES

Source County Date of submittal Source type Major source

pollutant

Cellofoam North America, Inc.—Falmouth

Plant.

Stafford .................... 9/22/98 ................... Polystyrene Insulation Production Plant.NOX

CNG Transmission Corp.—Leesburg Compressor Station.Loudoun ................... 5/23/00 ................... Natural Gas Compressor

Station.

NOX and VOC

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation—

Loudoun County Compressor Station.

Loudoun ................... 5/24/00 ................... Natural Gas Compressor

Station.

District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections— Lorton Prison.Fairfax ...................... 4/20/00 ................... Prison .................................. NOX and VOC

Michigan Cogeneration Systems, Inc.—Fairfax County I–95 Landfill Facility.Fairfax ...................... 5/12/00 ................... Landfill Gas Fired Electric

Power Generation.

NOX and VOC

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority—Ronald Reagan Washington National

Airport.

Arlington ................... 5/22/00 ................... Airport .................................. NOX

Nomen M. Cole, Jr., Pollution Control Plant Fairfax ...................... 4/27/00 ................... Wastewater Treatment Plant

with Sewage Sludge Incinerators.

NOX

Ogden Martin Systems of Alexandria/Arlington, Inc.Arlington ................... 9/14/98 ................... Municipal Waste Combustion Plant.NOX

Ogden Martin Systems of Fairfax, Inc .......... Fairfax ...................... 8/31/98 ................... Municipal Waste Combustion Plant.NOX

US Department of Defense—Pentagon Reservation.Arlington ................... 5/19/00 ................... Pentagon Office Building .... NOX

Potomac Electric Power Company—Potomac River Generating Station.Alexandria ................ 9/3/98 (NOX) ..........

5/9/00 (VOC) ..........

Electric Power Plant ............ NOX and VOC

United States Marine Corps.—Quantico

Base.

Prince William and

Stafford.

5/25/00 ................... Marine Corps Base ............. NOX

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation—Compressor Station # 185.Prince William County.5/5/97 ..................... Natural Gas Compressor

Station.

NOX

U.S. Army Garrison—Fort Belvoir ................ Fairfax ...................... 5/17/00 ................... Fort Belvoir Army Base ....... NOX

Virginia Power—Possum Point Plant ........... Prince William County.8/31/00 (NOX) ........

4/2/96 (VOC) .........

Electric Power Plant ............ NOX and VOC

Washington Gas Light Company——Springfield Operations Center.Fairfax ...................... 5/20/98 ................... Natural Gas Fired Cogeneration Plant.NOX

IV. General Information Pertaining to

SIP Submittals From the

Commonwealth

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation

that provides, subject to certain

conditions, for an environmental

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for

voluntary compliance evaluations

performed by a regulated entity. The

legislation further addresses the relative

burden of proof for parties either

asserting the privilege or seeking

disclosure of documents for which the

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s

legislation also provides, subject to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60143

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver

for violations of environmental laws

when a regulated entity discovers such

violations pursuant to a voluntary

compliance evaluation and voluntarily

discloses such violations to the

Commonwealth and takes prompt and

appropriate measures to remedy the

violations.

Virginia’s Voluntary Environmental

Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code

Section 10.1–1198, provides a privilege

that protects from disclosure documents

and information about the content of

those documents that are the product of

a voluntary environmental assessment.

The Privilege Law does not extend to

documents or information: (1) That are

generated or developed before the

commencement of a voluntary

environmental assessment; (2) that are

prepared independently of the

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate

a clear, imminent and substantial

danger to the public health or

environment; or (4) that are required by

law.

On January 12, 1997, the

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the

Attorney General provided a legal

opinion that states that the Privilege

law, Va. Code Section 10.1–1198,

precludes granting a privilege to

documents and information ‘‘required

by law,’’ including documents and

information ‘‘required by federal law to

maintain program delegation,

authorization or approval,’’ since

Virginia must ‘‘enforce federally

authorized environmental programs in a

manner that is no less stringent than

their federal counterparts. * * *’’ The

opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding

§ 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or

other information needed for civil or

criminal enforcement under one of these

programs could not be privileged

because such documents and

information are essential to pursuing

enforcement in a manner required by

federal law to maintain program

delegation, authorization or approval.’’

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code

Section 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o

the extent consistent with requirements

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person

making a voluntary disclosure of

information to a state agency regarding

a violation of an environmental statute,

regulation, permit, or administrative

order is granted immunity from

administrative or civil penalty. The

Attorney General’s January 12, 1997

opinion states that the quoted language

renders this statute inapplicable to

enforcement of any federally authorized

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be

afforded from administrative, civil, or

criminal penalties because granting

such immunity would not be consistent

with federal law, which is one of the

criteria for immunity.’’ Therefore, EPA

has determined that Virginia’s Privilege

and Immunity statutes will not preclude

the Commonwealth from enforcing its

program consistent with the federal

requirements.

In any event, because EPA has also

determined that a state audit privilege

and immunity law can affect only state

enforcement and cannot have any

impact on federal enforcement

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke

its authority under the Clean Air Act,

including, for example, sections 113,

167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the

requirements or prohibitions of the state

plan, independently of any state

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen

enforcement under section 304 of the

Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by

this, or any, state audit privilege or

immunity law.

V. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

approves state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.).

Because this rule proposes to approve

pre-existing requirements under state

law and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this proposed rule

also does not significantly or uniquely

affect the communities of tribal

governments, as specified by Executive

Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10,

1998).

This proposed 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 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also

is not subject to Executive Order 13045

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

it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply.

As required by section 3 of Executive

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,

1996), in issuing this proposed rule,

EPA has taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct.

EPA has complied with Executive

Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,

1988) by examining the takings

implications of the rule in accordance

with the ‘‘Attorney General’s

Supplemental Guidelines for the

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’ issued under the

executive order.

This proposed rule pertaining to

RACT SIP revisions for 16 sources in

Virginia does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: September 29, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–25931 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P