70792 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulations that are subject

of these corrections are under section

2702 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, final regulations (TD

8899) contain errors that may prove to

be misleading and are in need of

clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication of the

final regulations (TD 8899), which were

the subject of FR Doc. 00–22544, is

corrected as follows:

§ 25.2702–3 [Corrected]

1. On page 53589, column 1,

§ 25.2702–3(b)(3), the paragraph

heading ‘‘Payment of annuity amount.’’

is corrected to read ‘‘Period for payment

of annuity amount.’’.

2. On page 53589, column 1,

§ 25.2702–3(b)(4), first sentence, the

language ‘‘An annuity amount payable

based on the anniversary date of the

creation of the trust must be paid by the

anniversary date.’’ is corrected to read

‘‘An annuity amount payable based on

the anniversary date of the creation of

the trust must be paid no later than 105

days after the anniversary date.’’.

3. On page 53589, column 2,

§ 25.2702–3(c)(3), the paragraph heading

‘‘Payment of unitrust amount.’’ is

corrected to read ‘‘Period for payment of

unitrust amount.’’.

4. On page 53589, column 2,

§ 25.2702–3(c)(4), first sentence, ‘‘A

unitrust amount payable based on the

anniversary date of the creation of the

trust must be paid by the anniversary

date.’’ is corrected to read ‘‘A unitrust

amount payable based on the

anniversary date of the creation of the

trust must be paid no later than 105

days after the anniversary date.’’.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,

Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special

Counsel (Modernization & Strategic

Planning).

[FR Doc. 00–30265 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–130–1–7473a; FRL–6907–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Texas; Excess

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,

Malfunction and Maintenance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the Texas State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions concern 30 TAC, Chapter 101,

General Air Quality Rules, General

Rules, specifically, the reporting and

recordkeeping requirements for excess

emissions resulting from Startup,

Shutdown, Malfunction, and

Maintenance (SSM) episodes. The EPA

is approving these revisions to regulate

excess emissions in accordance with the

requirements of the Federal Clean Air

Act (the Act) and EPA’s policy on

excess emissions.

DATES: This rule is effective on January

29, 2001 without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comment by

December 28, 2000. 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: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section (6PD–L), at the EPA Region 6

Office listed below. Copies of

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

locations. Anyone wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, Office of Air Quality,

12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas

78753

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Alan Shar, P.E., Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–6691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. What action is EPA taking?

2. Where can I find EPA policies on excess

emission during SSM?

3. Is there a difference between EPA’s old

policy on excess emission and the new

policy?

4. What does the new policy say?

5. What does the current Texas approved SIP

rule say about excess emission during

SSM?

6. What are advantages of the new Texas rule

revision?

7. What is a Reportable Quantity?

8. What does a source do if its excess

emission during SSM is less than RQ?

9. Who has to report an excess emission

during SSM?

10. Do minor sources have to report excess

emission during SSM?

11. What areas in Texas will this rule affect?

12. What is a State Implementation Plan?

13. What is the Federal approval process for

a SIP?

14. What does Federal approval of a SIP

mean to me?

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA.

1. What Action Is EPA Taking?

On July 31, 2000, George W. Bush, the

Governor of Texas submitted the Texas

30 TAC Chapter 101, General Air

Quality Rules, General Rules, as a

revision to the existing Texas SIP. Texas

specifically submitted revisions to

sections 101.01 concerning Definitions;

101.06 concerning Upset Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements; 101.07

concerning Maintenance, Startup and

Shutdown Reporting, Recordkeeping

and Operational Requirements; and

101.11 concerning Demonstrations.

In this document, we are approving

these revisions to the Texas SIP. For

more information on the SIP revision

and our evaluation, please refer to our

Technical Support Document (TSD)

dated October 2000.

2. Where Can I Find EPA Policies on

Excess Emission During SSM?

You can find our policies on excess

emissions during SSM in the following

documents: (1) Memoranda from

Kathleen Bennett, formerly Assistant

Administrator for Air, Noise and

Radiation dated September 28, 1982,

and February 15, 1983 (the Bennett

Memo—old policy), and (2)

Memorandum from Steven A. Herman,

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance, dated

September 20, 1999 (the Herman

Memo—new policy). The Herman

Memo supplements the Bennett Memo.

Our TSD dated October 2000, contains

both of these documents.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70793

3. Is There a Difference Between EPA’s

Old Policy on Excess Emission and the

New Policy?

No, there is not a significant

difference between EPA’s old policy and

the new policy on excess emission. The

new policy on excess emission during

SSM episodes supplements and

reaffirms the old policy. As in the old

policy, we reiterate that, under the Act,

all excess emissions during SSM

episodes are violations of applicable

emission limitations. However, we

believe it would be inequitable to

penalize a source for occurrences

beyond the company’s control. A source

has the burden of proving that the

excess emissions were due to

circumstances entirely beyond the

control of the operator or the owner.

For a review of the Herman Memo

and Bennett Memo, please refer to our

TSD dated October, 2000.

4. What Does the New Policy Say?

The new policy discusses our intent

to generally treat excess emissions of

lead and sulfur dioxide differently from

those of other pollutants. See pages 1

and 2 of the attachment to the Herman

Memo. The new policy specifies a list

of objective criteria that a source with

excess emissions should meet in order

for the source to avoid potential

enforcement action. See pages 3, and 4

of the attachment to the Herman Memo.

The new policy also contains

suggestions for creating source category

specific rules concerning excess

emission during startup and shutdown

that will comply with the Act. See pages

5 and 6 of Attachment to the Herman

Memo.

5. What Does the Current Texas

Approved SIP Rule Say About Excess

Emission During SSM?

We approved the current SIP rule, for

Texas, on excess emissions during SSM

episodes in the Federal Register (37 FR

10895) dated May 31, 1972. Since that

time, Texas has adopted revisions to its

rule on excess emissions, but those

revisions have never been approved in

the SIP. Section 101.06 of the approved

SIP rule says that, a source must report

its ‘‘major’’ upset condition with

excessive emissions to the local air

pollution control agency or the

Executive Director. However, the

approved SIP rule did not specify what

constituted a ‘‘major’’ upset condition.

6. What Are Advantages of the New

Texas Rule Revision?

The revisions to Chapter 101, General

Air Quality Rules, General Rules will

have the following advantages by: (1)

Streamlining paper work and resources,

(2) assisting enforcement in focusing on

major and more frequent upsets, (3)

making reporting criteria more

consistent among various media (air and

hazardous waste programs), and (4)

adopting the burden of proof criteria

similar to those listed in the Herman

Memo of September 20, 1999.

7. What Is a Reportable Quantity?

Reportable Quantity (RQ) is a

threshold limit below which a source

does not have to report its excess

emission to the TNRCC. In this rule

when a source exceeds an emission

limitation by so many pounds of an

individual air contaminant or so many

pounds of mixtures of air contaminants,

the source will have to report its excess

emissions to the TNRCC. We have

adopted and used the RQ concept in the

40 CFR parts 355 and 370 (63 FR 31267,

dated June 8, 1998), Emergency

Planning and Community Right-ToKnow Act (EPCRA), and in the Table

302.4 of 40 CFR Chapter 1 (July 1, 1997

Edition), the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), in the past. Therefore, use of

RQ as a gauge or baseline default value

for reporting emissions or discharges is

not a new regulatory idea.

8. What Does a Source Do If Its Excess

Emission During SSM Is Less Than RQ?

If excess emission during an SSM

episode is less than RQ, the source does

not have to report that particular excess

emission to the TNRCC. The source that

experiences an excess emission less

than RQ will still have to maintain

information about such excess

emissions and make the information

available to the State and EPA during

inspections or upon request.

9. Who Has To Report an Excess

Emission During SSM?

All sources that experience an excess

emission equal to or greater than RQ,

during an SSM episode, need to report

their excess emissions. This rule does

not exempt a small source from

reporting its excess emission during an

SSM episode, if the excess emission

equals or exceeds the RQ limit.

10. Do Minor Sources Have To Report

Their Excess Emission During SSM?

Yes, minor sources have to report

their excess emission during an SSM

episode. Synthetic minor sources have

to report their excess emission during

SSM episodes, too. Reporting excess

emissions has to do with the amount of

RQ, and has nothing to do with the size

(minor, synthetic minor, or major) of a

facility or the source category/type of

facility.

11. What Is a State Implementation

Plan?

Section 110 of the Act requires States

to develop air pollution regulations and

control strategies to ensure that State air

quality meets the NAAQS that EPA has

established. Under section 109 of the

Act, EPA established the NAAQS to

protect public health. The NAAQS

address six criteria pollutants. These

criteria pollutants are: Carbon

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,

lead, particulate matter, and sulfur

dioxide.

Each State must submit these

regulations and control strategies to us

for approval and incorporation into the

federally enforceable SIP. Each State has

a SIP designed to protect air quality.

These SIPs can be extensive, containing

State regulations or other enforceable

documents and supporting information

such as emission inventories,

monitoring networks, and modeling

demonstrations.

12. What Is the Federal Approval

Process for a SIP?

When a State wants to incorporate its

regulations into the federally

enforceable SIP, the State must formally

adopt the regulations and control

strategies consistent with State and

Federal requirements. This process

includes a public notice, a public

hearing, a public comment period, and

a formal adoption by a state-authorized

rule making body.

Once a State adopts a rule, regulation,

or control strategy, the State may submit

the adopted provisions to us and request

that we include these provisions in the

federally enforceable SIP. We must then

decide on an appropriate Federal action,

provide public notice on this action,

and seek additional public comment

regarding this action. If we receive

adverse comments, we must address

them prior to a final action.

Under section 110 of the Act, when

we approve all State regulations and

supporting information, those State

regulations and supporting information

become a part of the federally approved

SIP. You can find records of these SIP

actions in the Code of Federal

Regulations at Title 40, part 52, entitled

‘‘Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual State

regulations that we approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR

but are ‘‘incorporated by reference,’’

which means that we have approved a

given State regulation with a specific

effective date.

70794 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

13. What Does Federal Approval of a

SIP Mean to Me?

A State may enforce State regulations

before and after we incorporate those

regulations into a federally approved

SIP. After we incorporate those

regulations into a federally approved

SIP, both EPA and the public may also

take enforcement action against

violators of these regulations.

14. What Areas in Texas Will These

Rules Affect?

These rule revisions will affect the

entire State of Texas and is not specific

to a certain area or part of the State. If

you are in Texas, you need to refer to

these rules to find out if and how these

rules will affect you.

Final Action

The EPA is publishing this rule

without prior proposal because we view

this as a noncontroversial amendment

and anticipate no adverse comments.

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’

section of today’s Federal Register

publication, we are publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision if

adverse comments are received. This

rule will be effective on January 29,

2001 without further notice unless we

receive adverse comment by December

28, 2000. If EPA receives 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 at

this time.

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 Regional

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. The proposed

rule does not involve special

consideration of environmental justice

related issues as required by Executive

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994). 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. The

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 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, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: November 15, 2000.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

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 SS—Texas

2. In § 52.2270 the table in paragraph

(c) is amended under Chapter 101 by:

a. Revising the heading immediately

above the entry for section 101.1 to read

‘‘Chapter 101—General Air Quality

Rules, Subchapter A—General Rules.’’

b. Revising the entries for sections

101.1, 101.6, 101.7, and 101.11.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP

State citation Title/Subject State adoption date EPA citation date Explanation

Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules

Subchapter A—General Rules

Section 101.1 ................. Definitions ....................................... 06/29/2000 11/28/00 65 FR 70794 ..... Reportable Quantity and Reportable Upset only.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70795

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued

State citation Title/Subject State adoption date EPA citation date Explanation

*******

Section 101.6 ................. Upset reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

06/29/2000 11/28/00 65 FR 70794 .....

Section 101.7 ................. Maintenance, startup and shutdown

reporting, recordkeeping and

operational requirements.

06/29/2000 11/28/00 65 FR 70794 .....

*******

Section 101.11 ............... Demonstrations ............................... 06/29/2000 11/28/00 65 FR 70794 .....

*******

[FR Doc. 00–30107 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 210–0266; FRL–6908–3]

California State Implementation Plan

Revision, San Diego County Air

Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Removal of a direct final rule

paragraph.

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment,

EPA is removing a paragraph included

in a direct final rule approving revisions

to the California State Implementation

Plan. EPA published the direct final rule

on September 18, 2000 (65 FR 56251),

approving a rule revision from the San

Diego County Air Pollution Control

District (SDCAPCD). As stated in that

Federal Register document, if adverse

or critical comments were received by

October 18, 2000, the rule would not

take effect and timely notice would be

published in the Federal Register.

However, EPA did not publsh the

withdrawal before the effective date of

the rule and is, therefore, removing a

paragraph added by that rule. EPA has

received adverse comments on that

direct final rule and may address these

comments in a final action within the

near future. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this future

final action.

DATES: 40 CFR 52.220(c)(255)(i)(F)(1)

published at 65 FR 56251 is removed as

of November 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

rule located in the final rules section of

the September 18, 2000 Federal Register

(65 FR 56251), and in the proposed rule

located in the proposed rule section of

the September 18, 2000 Federal Register

(65 FR 56278).

EPA received an adverse comment

concerning SDCAPCD Rule 67.11—

Wood Products Coating Operations and

the addition of 40 CFR

52.220(c)(255)(i)(F)(1). Prior to the close

of the comment period, SDCAPCD

requested that we withdraw our direct

final approval action on the rule.

Consequently, we are removing only the

portion of the direct final rule published

at 65 FR 56251 concerning SDCAPCD

Rule 67.11. Today’s action does not

affect our other direct final rulemaking

action approving Bay Area Air Quality

Management District Rule 8–11—Metal

container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil

Coating.

To conclude, 40 CFR

52.220(c)(255)(i)(F)(1) published at 65

FR 56251 is removed as of November

28, 2000.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: November 1, 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]

Subpart F—California

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph

(c)(255)(i)(F).

[FR Doc. 00–30115 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–6906–4]

RIN 2060–AI41

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:

Incorporation of Clean Air Act

Amendments for Reductions in Class I,

Group VI Controlled Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is

taking direct final action on the

accelerated phaseout regulations that

govern the production, import, export,

transformation and destruction of

substances that deplete the ozone layer

under the authority of Title VI of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(CAA or the Act). We are undertaking

these revisions to implement recent

changes (Oct. 21, 1998) to the CAA,

which direct EPA to conform the U.S.

methyl bromide phasedown schedule to

the schedule for industrialized nations

under the Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete the Ozone

Layer (Protocol). Specifically, today’s

amendments reflect the Protocol’s

reductions in the production and

consumption of class I, Group VI

controlled substances (methyl bromide)

for the 2001 calendar year and

subsequent calendar years, as follows:

beginning January 1, 2001, a 50 percent

reduction in baseline levels; beginning

January 1, 2003, a 70 percent reduction

in baseline levels; and, beginning

January 1, 2005, the complete phaseout

of class I, Group VI controlled

substances.