31544 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

§llll.22 Subsistence resource

regions.

(a) The Board hereby designates the

following areas as subsistence resource

regions:

(1) Southeast Region;

(2) Southcentral Region;

(3) Kodiak/Aleutians Region;

(4) Bristol Bay Region;

(5) Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Region;

(6) Western Interior Region;

(7) Seward Peninsula Region;

(8) Northwest Arctic Region;

(9) Eastern Interior Region;

(10) North Slope Region.

(b) You may obtain maps delineating

the boundaries of subsistence resources

regions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,

Anchorage, Alaska 99503.

§llll.23 Rural determinations.

(a) The Board has determined all

communities and areas to be rural in

accordance with §ll.15 except the

following:

Adak;

Fairbanks North Star Borough;

Juneau area—including Juneau, West

Juneau and Douglas;

Ketchikan area—including Ketchikan

City, Clover Pass, North Tongass

Highway, Ketchikan East, Mountain

Pass, Herring Cove, Saxman East, and

parts of Pennock Island;

Municipality of Anchorage;

Valdez; and

Wasilla area—including Palmer,

Wasilla, Sutton, Big Lake, Houston, and

Bodenberg Butte. You may obtain maps

delineating the boundaries of non-rural

areas from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

(b) [Reserved].

4. Amend §ll.24 by revising

paragraph (a) introductory text to read

as follows:

§ll.24 Customary and traditional use

determinations.

(a) The Federal Subsistence Board has

determined that rural Alaska residents

of the listed communities, areas, and

individuals have customary and

traditional use of the specified species

on Federal public land in the specified

areas. Persons granted individual

customary and traditional use

determinations will be notified in

writing by the Board. The Fish &

Wildlife Service and the local NPS

Superintendent will maintain the list of

individuals having customary and

traditional use on National Parks and

Monuments. A copy of the list is

available upon request. When there is a

determination for specific communities

or areas of residence in a Unit, all other

communities not listed for that species

in that Unit have no Federal subsistence

for that species in that Unit. If no

determination has been made for a

species in a Unit, all rural Alaska

residents are eligible to harvest fish or

wildlife under this part.

* * * * *

Dated: June 4, 2001.

Gale Norton,

Secretary of the Interior.

James A. Caplan,

Acting Regional Forester, USDA-Forest

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14717 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. NJ43–219; FRL–6990–

4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; New Jersey;

Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has found that the State

of New Jersey has implemented the

enhanced Inspection and Maintenance

(I/M) program. EPA, therefore, is

terminating all sanctions clocks related

to the implementation of the New Jersey

enhanced I/M program upon the

effective date of this document. This

action also reinstates the interim

approval granted under Section 348 of

the National Highway Systems

Designation Act of the enhanced I/M

program. The interim approval became

effective on December 13, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be

effective July 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available at

the following addresses for inspection

during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866; New Jersey

Department of Environmental

Protection, Office of Air Quality

Management, Bureau of Air Pollution

Control, 401 East State Street, CN027,

Trenton, New Jersey 08625; and

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judy-Ann Mitchell, Air Programs

Branch, Environmental Protection

Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New

York, New York 10278, (212) 637–4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Is EPA Taking Action On?

On November 19, 1999, New Jersey

notified EPA by letter that the

mandatory enhanced I/M program

would be implemented on December 13,

1999. EPA had been working closely

with the State during the phase-in

period of the enhanced I/M program and

agreed that the State would have the

program implemented on December 13,

1999. Therefore, on December 17, 1999

(64 FR 70659), EPA proposed to find

that the State of New Jersey had

implemented its enhanced I/M program

by December 13, 1999. EPA also

proposed to reinstate the interim

approval under Section 348 of the

NHSDA of the enhanced I/M program

effective on December 13, 1999.

Also in the December 17, 1999

Federal Register, EPA published an

interim final rule (64 FR 70593), which

stayed the application of the offset

sanction and deferred the highway

sanction as of December 13, 1999.

Although the State of New Jersey had

numerous start-up problems, the

program was implemented and is

currently operational. A description of

EPA’s rationale for our proposed action

was presented in the proposal and will

not be restated here. No public

comments were received on the

proposal.

II. Final Action

Upon the effective date of today’s

action, all sanctions clocks related to the

implementation of New Jersey’s

enhanced I/M program are terminated.

In addition, the interim approval of New

Jersey’s enhanced I/M program is

reinstated. Since approximately six

months of the interim period had passed

by December 12, 1997, the State had the

remaining 12 months of the interim

approval period to demonstrate their I/

M program’s test and repair network

effectiveness. On December 13, 2000,

New Jersey submitted their I/M

program’s test and repair network

effectiveness demonstration.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this final action

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and therefore is not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget.

This final action merely approves state

law as meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31545

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this final 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

approves 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). This final rule also

does not have a substantial direct effect

on one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will

it 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 final 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 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 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.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

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

will be effective July 12, 2001.

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 13, 2001.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: May 9, 2001.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 01–13779 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN68–01a; FRL–6991–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency is approving a site-specific

revision to the Minnesota Sulfur

Dioxide (SO2) State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for Koch Petroleum Group,

LP (Koch). The Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency (MPCA) submitted the

SIP revision request on December 20,

2000. The request is approvable because

it satisfies the requirements of the Clean

Air Act (Act). The rationale for the

approval and other information are

provided in this document.

DATES: This direct final rule will be

effective August 13, 2001, unless EPA

receives adverse comment by July 12,

2001. If EPA receives adverse

comments, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to: Carlton Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the above address.

(Please telephone Christos Panos at

(312) 353–8328, before visiting the

Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christos Panos, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

Air and Radiation Division, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 353–8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

supplemental information section is

organized as follows:

I. General Information

1. What action is EPA taking today?

2. Why is EPA taking this action?

3. What is the background for this

action?

II. Review of state implementation plan

revision

1. Why did the state submit this SIP

revision?

2. What Information did Minnesota