Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27455

(m) A divorced spouse annuity if the

spouse claimant has remarried the

employee during the six-month

retroactive period of the spouse annuity

application.

* * * * *

Dated: May 1, 2001.

By Authority of the Board.

Beatrice Ezerski,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 01–12395 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 934

[ND–040–FOR; North Dakota State Program

Amendment XXIX]

North Dakota Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

approving a proposed amendment to the

North Dakota regulatory program

(hereinafter, the ‘‘North Dakota

program’’) under the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

(SMCRA). The amendment consists of

changes to North Dakota’s revegetation

policy document, Standards for

Evaluation of Revegetation Success and

Recommended Procedures for Pre- and

Postmining Vegetation Assessments.

Many of the changes are the result of

rule changes that were submitted as

amendments to the North Dakota

regulatory program and approved by

OSM in the April 28, 1997, and March

16, 1999, Federal Registers (62 FR

22889, and 64 FR 12896), giving mining

companies options for proving

reclamation success and revising

requirements for tree and shrub

standards. The corresponding changes

are now being incorporated into the

policy document. Other changes include

clarifications, adjusting crop yield data,

adding factors for adjusting yield

standards, requiring plant species to be

predominantly native, providing

consistency for diversity and

seasonality, prescribing the number of

species for tame pastureland and

clarifying sampling procedures. North

Dakota intended to revise its policy

document to reflect changes to its

statute and regulations and make it

consistent with corresponding Federal

regulations and SMCRA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy

Padgett, Telephone: (307) 261–6550,

Internet address:

Gpadgett@OSMRE.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the North Dakota

Program

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background of the North Dakota

Program

On December 15, 1980, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the North Dakota program. You can find

background information on the North

Dakota program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and conditions of approval

in the December 15, 1980, Federal

Register (45 FR 82214). North Dakota’s

‘‘Standards for Evaluation of

Revegetation Success and

Recommended Procedures for Pre- and

Postmining Vegetation Assessments,’’

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘policy

document’’ was submitted to OSM on

June 1, 1988. The policy document was

submitted to satisfy the requirements of

30 CFR 816.116(a)(1). The Federal

regulations at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1)

require that regulatory authorities select

revegetation success standards and

statistically valid techniques for

determining revegetation success and

include them in its approved regulatory

program. The policy document satisfies

both these requirements. OSM’s

approval of the policy document was

published in the March 10, 1989,

Federal Register (46 FR 10141).

Subsequent revisions to the policy

document were approved by OSM on

February 17, 1994, and January 8, 1999.

The North Dakota regulatory program

contains specific rules governing

standards for success of various

postmining land uses in NDAC 69–

05.2–22–07. These rules have been

approved by OSM as being consistent

with 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116.

North Dakota’s policy document must

be consistent with these State

requirements.

You can find other actions concerning

North Dakota’s program and program

amendments at 30 CFR 934.15 and

934.16.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated March 16, 2000, North

Dakota sent us an amendment to its

program (North Dakota State Program

Amendment XXIX), administrative

record No. ND–DD–01) under SMCRA

(30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The amendment

revises North Dakota’s revegetation

policy document. Many of the changes

are made to incorporate rule changes

that were approved by OSM on April

28, 1997, and March 16, 1999,

pertaining to the new option of proving

reclamation success for three out of five

years, starting no sooner than the eighth

year of the responsibility period and

revised reclamation success standards

for woodlands and shelter belts.

In addition to revisions that are made

as a result of rule changes previously

approved by OSM, numerous other

changes are also proposed. These

changes include (1) clarifying the

objectives section, (2) adding provisions

to adjust North Dakota Agricultural

Statistic Service crop yield data to

reflect certain management practices, (3)

including other factors, in addition to

precipitation and temperature, in

developing a cropland and/or tame

pastureland regression equation to

climatically adjust yield standards, (4)

adding a statement to the native

grassland section that established plant

species must be predominantly native,

(5) providing more consistency for

species that must be present on tame

pastureland, and (7) clarifying sampling

procedures regarding when plant

growth forms must be weighed

separately. Some example calculations

were also revised to better reflect

premine conditions found at most of the

mines. Editorial changes were made to

correct errors in statistical formulas and

revisions were made to the objectives

section to clarify when certain

requirements became effective.

We announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the March 31,

2000, Federal Register (65 FR 17211). In

the same document, we opened the

public comment period and provided an

opportunity for a public hearing or

meeting on the amendment’s adequacy

(administrative record No. ND–DD–04).

We did not hold a public hearing or

meeting because no one requested one.

The public comment period ended at 4

pm m.d.t. May 1, 2000.

III. Director’s Findings

Following are the findings we made

concerning the amendment under

SMCRA and the Federal regulations at

30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are

approving the amendment revising

27456 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

North Dakota’s Revegetation Policy

Document (‘‘Standards for Evaluation of

Revegetation Success and

Recommended Procedures for Pre- and

Postmining Vegetation Assessments’’) as

described below.

1. Numerous Revisions To Reflect

Changes to Rules Governing

Requirements for Tree and Shrub

Standards and Options for Proving

Reclamation Success, Previously

Approved by OSM as Amendments to

the North Dakota Regulatory Program

a. OSM approved amendments to the

North Dakota regulatory program in the

April 28, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR

22889) revising NDAC 69–05.2–22–07.

Revegetation standards for reclaimed

woodlands and shelterbelts require that

at least eighty percent of the trees,

shrubs and half-shrubs counted for

meeting standards to be in place for at

least six years. New rule language states

this standard will be deemed satisfied if

the mine operator demonstrates that no

tree, shrub or half-shrub replanting has

occurred during the last six years of the

responsibility period. This new

language allows mining companies to

count all shrubs on reclaimed lands that

are established by natural regeneration

during the entire revegetation

responsibility period. The policy

document is revised to reflect these

approved changes.

b. OSM approved an amendment to

the North Dakota regulatory program in

the March 16, 1999, Federal Register

(64 FR 12896) revising NDAC 69–05.2–

22–07. This change gave mining

companies the option of proving

reclamation success for three out of five

consecutive years, starting no sooner

than the eighth year of the responsibility

period. The responsibility period runs

for at least ten years from the date

reclaimed lands are seeded. Mining

companies still have the option of

proving reclamation success by meeting

standards for the last two consecutive

growing seasons of the responsibility

period. The policy document is revised

to reflect this approved change.

2. Minor Editorial Revisions to the

Policy Document

a. Changing Soil Conservation Service

(SCS) to Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS)

b. Citing both NRCS and SCS

regarding consultation,

c. Updating the title of the NRCS

National Range and Pasture Handbook

(1997),

d. Correcting rule citations,

e. Changing the document to reflect

that three years required for crop

production on prime farmlands need

not necessarily be consecutive years.

These changes are minor and will not

make North Dakota’s revegetation policy

document less effective than the Federal

provisions contained in 30 CFR 816.111

and 816.116.

3. Adding Clarification or Improving

Examples Given

a. Improving the examples provided,

by reformatting and adding a standard ttest formula for convenience,

b. Clarifying when to use North

Dakota Agricultural Service annual

county yield data for alfalfa hay yield

versus all other hay yield information

when evaluating hayland/tame

pastureland vegetation production,

c. Clarifying sampling of

representative cropland strips, and

d. Clarifying that hand clipped

production samples must be separated

by growth forms only when used for

assessing seasonality.

These changes are mostly

clarifications, added explanations, or

changes to improve existing examples.

We find that they will not make North

Dakota’s revegetation policy document

less effective than the Federal

provisions contained in 30 CFR 816.116.

4. Approved Grazing on Native

Grasslands

North Dakota proposed adding a

statement to Section D. Native

Grasslands encouraging the use of

approved grazing on native grasslands

during the responsibility period.

However, initial grazing plans must be

approved by the State in accordance

with NDAC 69–05.2–22–06. This

statement is consistent with State

regulations.

5. Native Grasslands Must Be

Predominantly Native Cool and Warm

Season Grasses

North Dakota proposed adding a

statement that native grasslands must be

predominantly native cool and warm

season grasses and other appropriate

plant species in the approved seed

mixtures. This statement is consistent

with 30 CFR 816.111 which requires the

use of species native to the area, or of

introduced species where desirable and

necessary to achieve the approved

postmining land use.

6. Effective Date of Rules That Required

Vegetation Measurements

In the Objectives section, North

Dakota proposes clarifying the

applicability of the revegetation success

standards and time frames for

evaluation to lands disturbed under the

State program both prior to and

following the passage SMCRA. This

includes language that August 1, 1980,

was the effective date of rules that

required vegetation measurements to be

taken in the last two growing seasons of

the revegetation responsibility period.

The effective date of the option to prove

reclamation success for three out of five

consecutive years starting in the eighth

year of the revegetation liability period

was also added. These dates are the

effective dates contained in the existing

North Dakota regulations.

7. Vegetative Composition Requirements

for Tame Pasturelands at Bond Release

North Dakota proposes to revise

Section II–E to establish percentages for

the vegetative composition requirements

for tame pasturelands at bond release,

consistent with the fish and wildlife

habitat requirements, (previously there

was no defined percentage for

individual species). This ensures that

the seeded species are present at the

time of final bond release consistent

with 30 CFR 816.111.

8. Predicting Estimated Summer Fallow

or Continuous Cropping Yields

North Dakota proposes to revise the

Cropland Section to include countyspecific regression/correlation equations

to predict the estimated summer fallow

or continuous cropping yields based on

annual county yields. The regression/

correlation equations are based on long

term county data. The equations were

developed for the years of 1996 and

later because the NDASS discontinued

reporting individual yield values for

summer fallow or continuous cropping

after 1995.

The existing Cropland Section of the

policy document, which applies to both

prime farmland and non-prime

farmland, allows the use of North

Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service

(NDASS) county cropland yields. This

is consistent with 30 CFR 816.116(b)(2)

which requires that for areas developed

for use as cropland, crop production on

the revegetated area shall be at least

equal to that of a reference area or such

other success standards approved by the

regulatory authority.

For prime farmland only, 30 CFR

823.15(b)(7) states that Reference crop

yields for a given crop season are to be

determined from—(i) The current yield

records of representative local farms in

the surrounding area, with concurrence

by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service

(now the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS); or (ii) The

average county yields recognized by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, which

have been adjusted by the U.S. (NRCS)

for local yield variation within the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27457

county that is associated with

differences between nonmined prime

farmland soil and all other soils that

produce the reference crop.

The prime farmland regulations at 30

CFR 823.15(b)(8) state that under either

procedure in Paragraph (b)(7) of this

Section, the average reference crop yield

may be adjusted, with the concurrence

of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service

(NRCS), for—(i) Disease, pest, and

weather-induced seasonal variations; or

(ii) Differences in specific management

practices where the overall management

practices of the crops being compared

are equivalent.

North Dakota’s proposed countyspecific regression/correlation equations

to predict the estimated summer fallow

or continuous cropping yields based on

annual county yields are appropriate for

creating technical standards. In

accordance with 30 CFR 823.15(b)(8)(ii)

for prime farmland standards (which are

included under this section of the

guidelines) the NRCS must concur with

the proposed adjustment of average

reference crop yields for differences in

specific management practices where

the overall management practices of the

crops being compared are equivalent. In

response to this requirement North

Dakota provided a letter dated April 6,

2000, documenting the NRCS’s

concurrence with the proposed method

for adjusting county yield data for

summer fallow or continuous cropping.

9. Revise Correction Method 3

(Cropland) and 2 (Tame Pastureland)

North Dakota proposes to revise

Correction Method 3 in Section II–C,

Cropland, and Correction Method 2 in

Section II–E, Tame Pastureland, to allow

the use of other pertinent data, as well

as precipitation and temperature to

calculate a correction factor. It also

allows the use of other formulas

developed by the State besides

regression equations.

30 CFR 816.116(b)(2) requires that for

areas developed for use as cropland,

crop production on the revegetated area

shall be at least equal to that of a

reference area or such other success

standards approved by the regulatory

authority. The approved policy

document, sections II–C, Cropland, and

II–E, Tame Pastureland, contain

correction methods that allow the use of

NDASS data in conjunction with

precipitation and temperature data to

calculate a correction factor. The

regression equations will be developed

or updated by the State. They would

predict a deviation from the long term

average NDASS yields based on current

precipitation and growing season

temperature.

For prime farmlands, 30 CFR

823.15(b)(7) states that Reference Crop

yields for a given crop season are to be

determined from—(i) The current yield

records of representative local farms in

the surrounding area, with concurrence

by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service

(NRCS); or (ii) The average county

yields recognized by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, which have

been adjusted by the U.S. Soil

Conservation Service (NRCS) for local

yield variation within the county that is

associated with differences between

nonmined prime farmland soil and all

other soils that produce the reference

crop.

The prime farmland regulations at 30

CFR 823.15(b)(8) require that under

either procedure in Paragraph (b)(7) of

this Section, the average reference crop

yield may be adjusted, with the

concurrence of the U.S. Soil

Conservation Service (NRCS), for—(i)

Disease, pest, and weather-induced

seasonal variations; or (ii) Differences in

specific management practices where

the overall management practices of the

crops being compared are equivalent.

In support of the proposed language

to allow the use of other pertinent data

in developing correction factors for any

regression equations that are developed,

North Dakota has stated that pertinent

data includes other factors such as

number of days during critical parts of

the growing season where the maximum

temperature exceeds a certain level, the

incidence of widespread crop disease

and/or insect damage. Based on the

information provided and the NRCS

concurrence discussed below the

proposed revision of the two correction

methods is appropriate.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 823.15(b)(8) for

prime farmland standards (which are

included under the Cropland section of

the guidelines) North Dakota has

provided a letter dated April 6, 2000

(administrative record No. ND–DD–05),

documenting the NRCS’s concurrence

with the proposed changes to the

correction methods.

10. Diversity and Seasonality Standards

for Native Grassland

North Dakota proposes to revise its

diversity and seasonality standards

contained in Section II–D, for Native

Grassland. As proposed the State would

add an introduction to the diversity

standard that the presence of adequate

plant species diversity in the reclaimed

native grasslands is of much importance

because it reflects environmental/

community stability and ensures some

degree of sustainability under the

intended land use. Both cool and warm

season grass species are important and

needed in native grasslands. Therefore,

reclaimed native grasslands must be

established predominantly with both

cool and warm season native grass

species and other appropriate plant

species in the approved seed mixtures.

The diversity and seasonality standards

that follow require that either

production or cover data be used to

show that the standards have been

achieved.

The diversity and seasonality

standards can be based on the range

sites that occurred in the premine native

grassland tract or they can be based on

the range sites that are expected to

develop on the reclaimed tract.

However, the same methodology must

be used when measuring both diversity

and seasonality in each of the years

these measurements are taken on a

given tract. That is if the diversity

standard is based on the premine range

sites, the seasonality standard must also

be based on the premine range sites.

If the diversity and seasonality

standards will be based on the range

sites that are expected to develop on the

reclaimed tract, the discussion of this

method in the permit application must

address the projected native grassland

topsoil and subsoil respread thicknesses

and the maximum postmining slopes,

with a reference to the postmining area

slope map provided in another section

of the permit. Soils of the reclaimed

tract may be characterized by evaluating

the premine soil survey data and the

expected mixing that will occur.

Following revegetation, a field

assessment will be needed to verify the

site types on the reclaimed native

grassland.

In addition, all the examples for

calculating diversity have been revised

to reflect the revised diversity

standards.

The seasonality standard is also being

revised. Seasonality will be based on the

percentage of warm season grasses

because cool season grasses are very

competitive and generally dominate a

seeded stand in the Northern Great

Plains. To evaluate seasonality of

reclaimed native grassland, one of two

following standards may be used. Both

standards allow the use of either the

pre-mine range sites or the range sites

that are expected to develop on the

reclaimed tract. As previously noted,

the same methodology used to measure

diversity must be used to measure

seasonality. Both standards are based on

the percent composition of warm season

grasses relative to total species

composition. The example seasonality

calculations have also been revised to

reflect the revised standard.

27458 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

816.111(a)(1) require that the permittee

shall establish on regraded areas and on

all other disturbed areas except water

areas and surface areas of roads that are

approved as part of the postmining land

use, a vegetative cover that is in

accordance with the approved permit

and reclamation plan and that is

diverse, effective, and permanent. 30

CFR 816.111(b)(2) requires that the

reestablished plant species shall have

the same seasonal characteristics of

growth as the original vegetation.

Beyond this language no specific

success standards are provided for

diversity or seasonality. This is left to

the discretion of the regulatory

authority. North Dakota’s proposed

diversity and seasonality standards are

consistent with the Federal regulations

and are no less effective.

IV. Summary and Disposition of

Comments

Public Comments

We asked for public comments on the

amendment (administrative record No.

ND–DD–03), but did not receive any.

Federal Agency Comments

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we

requested on March 30, 2000, comments

on the amendment from various Federal

agencies with an actual or potential

interest in the North Dakota program

(administrative record No. ND–DD–03).

Thomas E. Jewett, State

Conservationist for the U.S. Department

of Agriculture’s Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS), in

addition to stating in his April 6, 2000

letter to North Dakota Reclamation

Division Director James R. Deutsch, that

‘‘We concur with all proposed changes.

***’’ further commented on recent

changes to NRCS cropland productivity

indexes that are used in North Dakota’s

revegetation document. In an April 11,

2000 letter to OSM Casper Field Office

Director, Guy Padgett, North Dakota

Reclamation Division Director James R.

Deutsch stated, ‘‘Please be advised we

plan to incorporate the updated indexes

into the document the next time some

changes are made.’’

State Conservationist Thomas E.

Jewett, further responded with a May 2,

2000 letter (administrative record No.

ND–DD–06) to OSM Casper Field Office

Director, Guy Padgett, thatNRCS is in

the process of developing Ecological

Site Descriptions to replace Range Site

Descriptions. It also questioned what

reference sites might be used if soil

chemistry or other critical soil

parameters were sufficiently altered on

reclaimed areas.

NRCS also raised the possibility that

a native grassland reference area may be

located on rangeland that is in poor

condition. In addition, that NRCS

references should be made to specific

parts of the Field Office Technical

Guide. Finally, that vegetation

document text references should be to

the current name of the agency, the

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

and not to its former name, the Soil

Conservation Service.

In his June 23, 2000 response

(administrative record No. ND–DD–07)

to Mr. Jewett’s May 2, 2000 letter, the

director of the Reclamation Division of

the North Dakota Public Service

Commission, James R. Deutsch, stated

that: (1) He was aware that Ecological

Site Descriptions will be replacing

Range Site Descriptions but that it

would be several years at which time he

would decide if it is necessary to revise

the revegetation document accordingly;

(2) that a reference area and a reclaimed

tract must receive management that is

equivalent in effect during the

revegetation responsibility period; and

(3) that North Dakota will review the

bibliography and references for possible

changes with the next revision to the

revegetation document.

OSM concurs with Mr. Deutsch’s

response to Mr. Jewett’s concerns.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Concurrence and Comments

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM

requested comments on the amendment

from EPA (administrative record No.

ND–DD–03). EPA did not respond to our

request.

State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) and the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are

required to request comments from the

SHPO and ACHP on amendments that

may have an effect on historic

properties. On March 30, 2000, we

requested comments on North Dakota’s

amendment (administrative record No.

XXIX), but neither responded to our

request.

V. Director’s Decision

Based on the above findings, we

approve the amendment sent to us by

North Dakota, as revised on March 16,

2000.

We approve, as discussed in: finding

No. 1, Minor Editorial changes, finding

No. 2, concerning II–C, Cropland;

finding No. 3, concerning II–C and II–

E, Cropland and Tame Pastureland; and

finding No. 4, concerning Native

Grassland.

To implement this decision, we are

amending the Federal regulations at 30

CFR part 934, which codify decisions

concerning the North Dakota program.

We are making his final rule effective

immediately to expedite the State

program amendment process and to

encourage States to make their programs

conform with the Federal standards.

SMCRA requires consistency of State

and Federal standards.

VI. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

2. Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

This rule doe not require an

environmental impact statement

because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency

decisions on proposed State regulatory

program provisions do not constitute

major Federal actions within the

meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27459

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

that is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

6. Unfunded Mandates

OSM has determined and certifies

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rule

will not impose a cost of $100 million

or more in any given year on any local,

State, or Tribal governments or private

entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 934

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 3, 2001.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR part 934 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 934—NORTH DAKOTA

1. The authority citation for part 934

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 934.15 is amended in the

table by adding a new entry in

chronological order by ‘‘Date of Final

Publication’’ to read as follows:

§ 934.15 Approval of North Dakota

regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

Original amendment submission

date Date of final publication Citation/description

*******

March 16, 2000 .............................. May 17, 2001 ................................. Standards for Evaluation of Revegetation Success and Recommended Procedures for Pre- and Postmining Vegetation Assessments.

[FR Doc. 01–12456 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DE 054–1031a; FRL–6981–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Delaware; Nitrogen Oxides Budget

Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the Delaware

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

submitted on November 17, 2000. This

revision responds to the EPA’s

regulation entitled, ‘‘Finding of

Significant Contribution and

Rulemaking for Certain States in the

Ozone Transport Assessment Group

Region for Purposes of Reducing

Regional Transport of Ozone,’’

otherwise known as the ‘‘NOX SIP Call.’’

This revision establishes and requires a

nitrogen oxides (NOX) allowance trading

program for large electric generating and

industrial units, beginning in 2003. The

intended effect of this action is to

approve the Delaware NOX Budget

Trading Program because it addresses

the requirements of the NOX SIP Call

Phase I that will significantly reduce

ozone transport in the eastern United

States. EPA is approving these revisions

in accordance with the requirements of

the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 16,

2001 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse written comment by

June 18, 2001. If EPA receives such

comments, it will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Air

Quality Planning and Information

Services Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, 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

Delaware Department of Natural

Resources & Environmental Control, 89

Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover,

Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cristina Fernandez, (215) 814–2178, or

by e-mail at fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 17, 2000, the Delaware

Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control (DNREC)

submitted a revision to its SIP to

address the requirements of the NOX SIP

Call Phase I. The revision consists of the

adoption of Regulation No. 39—

Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading

Program.

The information in this section is

organized as follows:

I. EPA’s Action

A. What action is EPA taking today?

B. Why is EPA taking direct final action?

C. What are the general NOX SIP Call

requirements?

D. What is EPA’s NOX budget trading

program?

E. What guidance did EPA use to evaluate

Delaware’s submittal?

II. Delaware’s NOX Budget Trading Program

A. When did Delaware submit the SIP

revision to EPA in response to the NOX

SIP Call?

B. What is the Delaware NOX Budget

Trading Program?

C. What is the result of EPA’s evaluation

of Delaware’s program?

III. Final Action

A. NOX SIP Call Requirements

B. One-Hour Attainment Demonstration

Plans

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

B. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. EPA’s Action

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is taking direct final action to

approve the Delaware SIP revision

concerning the adoption of its NOX