Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61791 

establish controlled airspace at Dry 

Creek Airport, Cypress, TX. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 6, 2014 and 

effective September 15, 2014, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ASW TX E5 Cypress, TX [New] 

Dry Creek Airport, TX 

(Lat. 29°59′11′′ N., long. 95°41′08′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile 

radius of Dry Creek Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 4, 

2014. 

Robert W. Beck, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24450 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4901–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–136676–13] 

RIN 1545–BM01 

Removal of the 36-Month Non-Payment 

Testing Period Rule 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

proposed regulations that will remove a 

rule that a deemed discharge of 

indebtedness for which a Form 1099–C, 

‘‘Cancellation of Debt,’’ must be filed 

occurs at the expiration of a 36-month 

non-payment testing period. The 

Department of the Treasury and the IRS 

are concerned that the rule creates 

confusion for taxpayers and does not 

increase tax compliance by debtors or 

provide the IRS with valuable thirdparty information that may be used to 

ensure taxpayer compliance. The 

proposed regulations will affect certain 

financial institutions and governmental 

entities. 

DATES: Comments and requests for a 

public hearing must be received by 

January 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–136676–13), Room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. 

Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 

Washington, DC 20044. Submissions 

may be hand-delivered Monday through 

Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. 

and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG– 

136676–13), Courier’s Desk, Internal 

Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

Alternatively, taxpayers may submit 

comments electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–136676– 

13). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

Hollie Marx, (202) 317–6844; 

concerning the submission of comments 

and requests for a public hearing, 

Oluwafunmilayo Taylor, (202) 317–6901 

(not toll-free calls). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This document contains proposed 

regulations to amend certain Income 

Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) issued 

under section 6050P of the Internal 

Revenue Code (Code), which provide 

that the 36-month non-payment testing 

period is an identifiable event triggering 

an information reporting obligation for 

discharge of indebtedness by certain 

entities. The proposed regulations 

would remove the 36-month nonpayment testing period as an 

identifiable event. 

Statutory Provisions 

Section 61(a)(12) provides that 

income from discharge of indebtedness 

is includible in gross income. Section 

6050P was added to the Code by section 

13252 of the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1993, Public Law 

103–66 (107 Stat. 312, 531–532 (1993)). 

Section 6050P was enacted in part ‘‘to 

encourage taxpayer compliance with 

respect to discharged indebtedness’’ and 

to ‘‘enhance the ability of the IRS to 

enforce the discharge of indebtedness 

rules.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 103–111, at 758 

(1993). As originally enacted, section 

6050P generally required applicable 

financial entities (generally financial 

institutions, credit unions, and Federal 

executive agencies) that discharge (in 

whole or in part) indebtedness of $600 

or more during a calendar year to file 

information returns with the IRS and to 

furnish information statements to the 

persons whose debt is discharged. In 

addition to other information prescribed 

by regulations, an applicable financial 

entity is required to include on the 

information return the debtor’s name, 

taxpayer identification number, the date 

of the discharge, and the amount 

discharged. See 26 U.S.C. 6050P(a) 

(1994). 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act 

of 1996 (1996 Act), Public Law 104–134 

(110 Stat. 1321, 1321–368 through 

1321–369 (1996)) was enacted on April 

26, 1996. Section 31001(m)(2)(B)(i) and 

(ii) of the 1996 Act amended section 

6050P to expand the reporting 

requirement to cover ‘‘applicable 

entities,’’ which includes any executive, 

judicial, or legislative agency, not just 

federal executive agencies, and any 

previously covered applicable financial 

entity. Effective for discharges of 

indebtedness occurring after December 

31, 1999, section 533(a) of the Ticket to 

Work and Work Incentives 

Improvement Act of 1999 (1999 Act), 

Public Law 106–170 (113 Stat. 1860, 

1931 (1999)), added subparagraph 

(c)(2)(D) to section 6050P, to further 

expand entities covered by the reporting 

requirements to include any 

organization the ‘‘significant trade or 

business of which is the lending of 

money.’’ 

On April 4, 2000, the IRS released 

Notice 2000–22 (2000–1 CB 902) to 

provide penalty relief to organizations 

that were newly made subject to section 

6050P by the 1999 Act (organizations 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61792 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

with a significant trade or business of 

lending money and agencies other than 

Federal executive agencies). The relief 

applied to penalties for failure to file 

information returns or furnish payee 

statements for discharges of 

indebtedness occurring before January 

1, 2001. On December 26, 2000, the IRS 

released Notice 2001–8 (2001–1 CB 374) 

to extend the penalty relief for 

organizations described in Notice 2000– 

22 for discharges of indebtedness that 

occurred prior to the first calendar year 

beginning at least two months after the 

date that appropriate guidance is issued. 

Regulatory History 

On December 27, 1993, temporary 

regulations under section 6050P relating 

to the reporting of discharge of 

indebtedness were published in the 

Federal Register (TD 8506) (58 FR 

68301). The temporary regulations 

provided that an applicable financial 

entity must report a discharge of 

indebtedness upon the occurrence of an 

identifiable event that, considering all 

the facts and circumstances, indicated 

the debt would never have to be repaid. 

The temporary regulations provided a 

non-exhaustive list of three identifiable 

events that would give rise to the 

reporting requirement under section 

6050P: (1) A discharge of indebtedness 

under title 11 of the United States Code 

(Bankruptcy Code); (2) an agreement 

between the applicable financial entity 

and the debtor to discharge the 

indebtedness, provided that the last 

event to effectuate the agreement has 

occurred; and (3) a cancellation or 

extinguishment of the indebtedness by 

operation of law. These regulations were 

effective for discharges of indebtedness 

occurring after December 31, 1993. 

A concurrently published notice of 

proposed rulemaking (IA–63–93) (58 FR 

68337) proposed to adopt those and 

other rules in the temporary regulations. 

Written comments were received in 

response to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, and testimony was given at 

a public hearing held on March 30, 

1994. In response to the comments and 

testimony, the IRS provided, in Notice 

94–73 (1994–2 CB 553), interim relief 

from penalties for failure to comply 

with certain of the reporting 

requirements of the temporary 

regulations for discharges of 

indebtedness occurring before the later 

of January 1, 1995, or the effective date 

of final regulations under section 6050P. 

On January 4, 1996, prior to the 

amendments made by the 1996 Act, 

final regulations relating to the 

information reporting requirements of 

applicable financial entities for 

discharges of indebtedness were 

published in the Federal Register (TD 

8654) (61 FR 262) (1996 final 

regulations). The final regulations were 

generally effective for discharges of 

indebtedness occurring after December 

21, 1996, although applicable financial 

entities at their discretion could apply 

the final regulations to any discharge of 

indebtedness occurring on or after 

January 1, 1996, and before December 

22, 1996. Further, the preamble to these 

regulations provided that the temporary 

regulations and the interim relief 

provided in Notice 94–73 remained in 

effect until December 21, 1996. Finally, 

the 36-month non-payment testing 

period identifiable event would not 

occur prior to December 31, 1997. See 

§ 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(iv)(C) of the 1996 final 

regulations. 

In response to objections by 

commenters, the 1996 final regulations 

did not adopt the facts and 

circumstances test to determine whether 

a discharge of indebtedness had 

occurred and information reporting was 

required. Instead, the 1996 final 

regulations provided that a debt is 

deemed to be discharged for information 

reporting purposes only upon the 

occurrence of an identifiable event 

specified in an exhaustive list under 

§ 1.6050P–1(b)(2), whether or not an 

actual discharge has occurred on or 

before the date of the identifiable event. 

See § 1.6050P–1(a)(1). 

Section 1.6050P–1(b)(2) of the 1996 

final regulations listed eight identifiable 

events that trigger information reporting 

obligations on the part of an applicable 

financial entity: (1) A discharge of 

indebtedness under the Bankruptcy 

Code; (2) a cancellation or 

extinguishment of an indebtedness that 

renders the debt unenforceable in a 

receivership, foreclosure, or similar 

proceeding in a federal or state court, as 

described in section 368(a)(3)(A)(ii) 

(other than a discharge under the 

Bankruptcy Code); (3) a cancellation or 

extinguishment of an indebtedness 

upon the expiration of the statute of 

limitations for collection (but only if, 

and only when, the debtor’s statute of 

limitations affirmative defense has been 

upheld in a final judgment or decision 

in a judicial proceeding, and the period 

for appealing it has expired) or upon the 

expiration of a statutory period for filing 

a claim or commencing a deficiency 

judgment proceeding; (4) a cancellation 

or extinguishment of an indebtedness 

pursuant to an election of foreclosure 

remedies by a creditor that statutorily 

extinguishes or bars the creditor’s right 

to pursue collection of the indebtedness; 

(5) a cancellation or extinguishment of 

an indebtedness that renders a debt 

unenforceable pursuant to a probate or 

similar proceeding; (6) a discharge of 

indebtedness pursuant to an agreement 

between an applicable entity and a 

debtor to discharge indebtedness at less 

than full consideration; (7) a discharge 

of indebtedness pursuant to a decision 

by the creditor, or the application of a 

defined policy of the creditor, to 

discontinue collection activity and 

discharge debt; (8) the expiration of a 

36-month non-payment testing period. 

The first seven identifiable events are 

specific occurrences that typically result 

from an actual discharge of 

indebtedness. The eighth identifiable 

event, the expiration of a 36-month nonpayment testing period, may not result 

from an actual discharge of 

indebtedness. The 36-month nonpayment testing period was added to the 

final regulations in 1996 as an 

additional identifiable event in response 

to concerns of creditors that the facts 

and circumstances approach taken in 

the temporary and proposed regulations 

was unclear regarding the effect of 

continuing collection activity. Creditors 

proposed (among other things) that the 

final regulations require reporting after 

a fixed time period during which there 

had been no collection efforts. 

Section 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(iv) of the 

1996 regulations sets forth the 36-month 

non-payment testing period rule (the 36- 

month rule). Under that rule, a 

rebuttable presumption arises that an 

identifiable event has occurred if a 

creditor does not receive a payment 

within a 36-month testing period. The 

creditor may rebut the presumption if 

the creditor engaged in significant bona 

fide collection activity at any time 

within the 12-month period ending at 

the close of the calendar year or if the 

facts and circumstances existing as of 

January 31 of the calendar year 

following the expiration of the nonpayment testing period indicate that the 

indebtedness has not been discharged. 

A creditor’s decision not to rebut the 

presumption that an identifiable event 

has occurred pursuant to the 36-month 

rule is not an indication that it has 

discharged the debt. Concluding that the 

debts have, in fact, been discharged, 

some taxpayers may include in income 

the amounts reported on Forms 1099–C 

even though creditors may continue to 

attempt to collect the debt after issuing 

a Form 1099–C as required by the 36- 

month rule. See § 1.6050P–1(a)(1) and 

(b)(iv). 

On October 25, 2004, final regulations 

reflecting the amendments to section 

6050P(c) were published in the Federal 

Register (TD 9160) (69 FR 62181). These 

regulations describe circumstances in 

which an organization has a significant 

trade or business of lending money and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61793 

provide three safe harbors under which 

organizations will not be considered to 

have a significant trade or business of 

lending money. 

On November 10, 2008, final and 

temporary regulations were published 

in the Federal Register (TD 9430) (73 FR 

66539) (2008 regulations) to amend the 

regulations under section 6050P to 

exempt from the 36-month rule entities 

that were not within the scope of 

section 6050P as originally enacted 

(organizations with a significant trade or 

business of lending money and agencies 

other than Federal executive agencies). 

The changes made by the 2008 

regulations reduced the burden on these 

entities and protected debtors from 

receiving information returns that 

reported discharges of indebtedness 

from these entities before a discharge 

had occurred. The 2008 regulations also 

added § 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(v), which 

provided that, for organizations with a 

significant trade or business of lending 

money and agencies other than federal 

executive agencies that were required to 

file information returns pursuant to the 

36-month rule in a tax year prior to 2008 

and failed to file them, the date of 

discharge would be the first identifiable 

event, if any, described in § 1.6050P– 

1(b)(2)(i)(A) through (G) that occurs after 

2007. On September 17, 2009, final 

regulations were published in the 

Federal Register (TD 9461) (74 FR 

47728–01) adopting the 2008 

regulations without change. 

Notice 2012–65 

Even after the amendments to the 

regulations in 2008 and 2009, concerns 

continued to arise about the 36-month 

rule, and taxpayers remained confused 

regarding whether the receipt of a Form 

1099–C represents cancellation of debt 

that must be included in gross income. 

To address those concerns, in Notice 

2012–65 (2012–52 IRB 773 (Dec. 27, 

2012)), the Treasury Department and the 

IRS requested comments from the 

public regarding whether to remove or 

modify the 36-month rule as an 

identifiable event for purposes of 

information reporting under section 

6050P. Ten comments were received, all 

recommending removal or revision of 

the 36-month rule. Several commenters 

generally expressed concerns that the 

expiration of a 36-month non-payment 

testing period does not necessarily 

coincide with an actual discharge of the 

indebtedness, leading to confusion on 

the part of the debtor and, in some 

instances, uncertainty on the part of the 

creditor regarding whether it may 

lawfully continue to pursue the debt. 

Additionally, commenters noted that 

the IRS’s ability to collect tax on 

discharge of indebtedness income may 

be undermined if the actual discharge 

occurs in a different year than the year 

of information reporting. 

Explanation of Provisions 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

agree that information reporting under 

section 6050P should generally coincide 

with the actual discharge of a debt. 

Because reporting under the 36-month 

rule may not reflect a discharge of 

indebtedness, a debtor may conclude 

that the debtor has taxable income even 

though the creditor has not discharged 

the debt and continues to pursue 

collection. Issuing a Form 1099–C 

before a debt has been discharged may 

also cause the IRS to initiate compliance 

actions even though a discharge has not 

occurred. Additionally, § 1.6050P– 

1(e)(9) provides that no additional 

reporting is required if a subsequent 

identifiable event occurs. Therefore, in 

cases in which the Form 1099–C is 

issued because of the 36-month rule but 

before the debt is discharged, the IRS 

does not subsequently receive thirdparty reporting when the debt is 

discharged. The IRS’s ability to enforce 

collection of tax for discharge of 

indebtedness income may, thus, be 

diminished when the information 

reporting does not reflect an actual 

cancellation of indebtedness. After 

considering the public comments and 

the effects on tax administration, the 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

propose to remove the 36-month rule. 

In addition to the comments 

recommending removal of the 36-month 

rule, commenters made other 

suggestions to change this rule, which 

were not adopted. One commenter 

suggested that the rule should be 

revised to require information reporting 

after 24 months of non-payment, 

without regard to the creditor’s 

collection efforts. The commenter 

suggested that most debts are not 

collectible after 24 months of nonpayment and that requiring information 

reporting after 24 months would allow 

the IRS time to assess. This commenter 

also suggested that the Form 1099–C 

should be revised to clarify that the 

issuance of a Form 1099–C does not 

mean that the debt is discharged, and 

that creditors should be required to 

issue corrected Forms 1099–C if they 

receive payments after the first Form 

1099–C is issued. 

The revisions proposed by the 

commenter do not alleviate the 

problems to debtors, creditors, and the 

IRS caused by the 36-month rule. There 

is no indication that merely shortening 

the time before a Form 1099–C is 

required to be issued more closely 

comports with the actual discharge of 

indebtedness. For example, even if the 

debt has actually been discharged, the 

amount reported on the Form 1099–C 

may not be the same as the amount that 

the taxpayer is required to report as 

income because, for instance, the 

taxpayer may be entitled to claim an 

exclusion or an exemption. In addition, 

the Instructions for Debtor on Form 

1099–C already explain that the 

issuance of a Form 1099–C does not 

necessarily mean that the debtor must 

include the cancellation of debt in gross 

income. As a result, such revisions 

would fail to address the fact that 

issuance of a Form 1099–C pursuant to 

the 36-month rule does not necessarily 

coincide with a discharge of 

indebtedness. Also, the commenter’s 

suggestion that creditors be required to 

issue a corrected Form 1099–C if they 

later receive a payment from the debtor 

would not reduce the debtor’s confusion 

about what receipt of a Form 1099–C 

issued pursuant to the 36-month rule 

means. The issuance of a corrected 

Form 1099–C after the debtor has 

already reported discharge of 

indebtedness income with respect to the 

discharge that is reported on the 

corrected Form 1099–C could require 

the debtor to file amended returns to 

report the reduced amount of 

cancellation indebtedness and the 

debtor may be entitled to a refund. 

Issuance of a corrected Form 1099–C 

would increase, not decrease, the 

debtor’s confusion regarding how to 

proceed. 

One commenter suggested that the 

rule should be retained because it 

eliminates the possibility of a 

‘‘permanent deferral’’ of information 

reporting of a discharged debt. This 

commenter noted two recent Tax Court 

cases, Kleber v. Commissioner, T.C. 

Memo. 2011–233, and Stewart v. 

Commissioner, T.C. Sum. Op. 2012–46, 

in which the court used the 36-month 

rule to determine the year in which a 

debt was discharged. In both cases, the 

court determined that the statute of 

limitations for assessment had expired 

before a Form 1099–C was issued. The 

commenter stated that confusion could 

result if the 36-month rule is eliminated 

for information reporting purposes, but 

the court continues to use it to 

determine whether there has been an 

actual discharge. The commenter 

viewed this as a reason to retain the rule 

in a modified form. The commenter 

suggested that the Treasury Department 

and the IRS modify the 36-month rule 

and § 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(i)(G) by: (1) 

Treating a creditor’s decision to 

discontinue collection activities as an 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61794 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

identifiable event, whether or not that 

decision coincides with an actual 

discharge; (2) placing a 36-month time 

limit on a creditor’s defined policy for 

discharging a debt under § 1.6050P– 

1(b)(2)(i)(G); (3) prohibiting creditors 

from issuing Forms 1099–C while 

collection activities are ongoing or 

while the creditor is considering selling 

the debt; and (4) requiring creditors to 

issue corrected Forms 1099–C if they 

engage in subsequent collection 

activities or receive a payment on the 

debt. 

Because the revisions suggested by 

this commenter would not require 

information reporting only upon an 

actual discharge of indebtedness, the 

revisions would not eliminate the 

problems associated with issuance of 

Forms 1099–C under the 36-month rule. 

Adopting these changes could increase, 

not decrease, confusion, because they 

would modify another identifiable 

event, § 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(i)(G), to require 

that a debtor’s policy for discharging 

debt incorporate a 36-month discharge 

rule. Additionally, as explained in this 

preamble, requiring creditors to issue 

corrected Forms 1099–C would neither 

improve tax compliance nor reduce 

debtors’ confusion. Eliminating the 36- 

month rule for information reporting 

purposes, moreover, is likely to lead 

courts to cease using it as an identifiable 

event for purposes of determining when 

an actual discharge occurs, thereby 

eliminating the issue of the IRS being 

precluded from assessing tax on 

discharge of indebtedness before the 

information return has been issued. 

Effective Date 

Sections 1.6050P–1(b)(2)(i)(H), 

1.6050P–1(b)(2)(iv), and 1.6050P– 

1(b)(2)(v) would be removed on the date 

these regulations are published as final 

regulations in the Federal Register. 

Conforming amendments to § 1.6050P– 

1(h)(1) necessary as a result of the 

removal of the above-referenced 

sections would be effective on the same 

date. 

Special Analyses 

It has been determined that this notice 

of proposed rulemaking is not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

in Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563. Therefore, a regulatory 

assessment is not required. It also has 

been determined that section 553(b) of 

the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these 

regulations. Because the regulations do 

not impose a collection of information 

on small entities, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does 

not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of 

the Code, this notice of proposed 

rulemaking has been submitted to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration for comment 

on its impact on small business. 

Comments and Requests for a Public 

Hearing 

Before these proposed regulations are 

adopted as final regulations, 

consideration will be given to any 

comments that are submitted timely to 

the IRS as prescribed in this preamble 

under the ADDRESSES heading. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

request comments on all aspects of the 

proposed rules. All comments will be 

available at www.regulations.gov or 

upon request. 

A public hearing will be scheduled if 

requested by any person who timely 

submits comments. If a public hearing is 

scheduled, notice of the date, time, and 

place for the hearing will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

Drafting Information 

The principal author of these 

proposed regulations is Hollie Marx of 

the Office of Associate Chief Counsel 

(Procedure and Administration). 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be 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 1.6050P–1 is amended 

by: 

■ a. Removing paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(H), 

(b)(2)(iv), and (b)(2)(v). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (h). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 1.6050P–1 Information reporting for 

discharge of indebtedness by certain 

entities. 

* * * * * 

(h) Effective/applicability date. The 

rules in this section apply to discharges 

of indebtedness after December 21, 

1996, except paragraphs (e)(1) and (3) of 

this section, which apply to discharges 

of indebtedness after December 31, 

1994, and except paragraph (e)(5) of this 

section, which applies to discharges of 

indebtedness occurring after December 

31, 2004. 

John Dalrymple, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24392 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0746; FRL–9917–79– 

Region–9] 

Approval, Disapproval, and Limited 

Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

California; Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District; Stationary 

Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on 

seven permitting rules submitted as a 

revision to the Monterey Bay Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 

(MBUAPCD or District) portion of the 

applicable state implementation plan 

(SIP) for the State of California. We are 

proposing to disapprove one rule, we 

are proposing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of one rule, we are 

proposing to repeal one rule, and we are 

proposing to approve the remaining four 

permitting rules. The submitted 

revisions include new and amended 

rules governing the issuance of permits 

for stationary sources, including review 

and permitting of minor sources, and 

major sources and major modifications 

under part C of title I of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). The intended effect of these 

proposed actions is to update the 

applicable SIP with current MBUAPCD 

permitting rules and to set the stage for 

remedying certain deficiencies in these 

rules. If finalized as proposed, the 

limited disapproval actions would 

trigger an obligation for EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan unless California submits and we 

approve SIP revisions that correct the 

deficiencies within two years of the 

final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 14, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2014–0746, by one of the 

following methods: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS