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

31546 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

submit, and what were its requests?

3. How Does the SIP Revision Show

Attainment of the SO2 Standards?

III. Final Rulemaking Action

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, EPA is approving into

the Minnesota SO2 SIP a site-specific

revision for Koch, located in the Pine

Bend Area of Rosemount, Dakota

County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is

approving into the (SO2) SIP

Amendment No. 4 to the Administrative

Order (Order) for Koch.

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

EPA is taking this action because the

state’s submittal for Koch is fully

approvable. The SIP revision provides

for attainment and maintenance of the

SO2 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) and satisfies the

applicable SO2 requirements of the Act.

A more detailed explanation of how the

state’s submittal meets these

requirements is in EPA’s March 2, 2000

Technical Support Document (TSD).

3. What Is the Background for This

Action?

EPA designated Air Quality Control

Region (AQCR) 131, which contains

Dakota County, as a primary SO2

nonattainment area on March 3, 1978

(43 FR 8962) based on monitored

violations of the primary SO2 NAAQS

from 1975 through 1977. In response to

the Part D requirements of the Act,

MPCA submitted a final SO2 plan for

AQCR 131 on August 4, 1980. EPA

approved the Minnesota Part D SO2 SIP

for AQCR 131 on April 8, 1981 (46 FR

20996). Based on monitored violations

recorded in 1982, EPA declared the

Dakota County SO2 SIP inadequate and

issued a call for revisions to the

Minnesota SO2 SIP on December 5, 1984

(49 FR 47488). The SIP call required

that MPCA submit a SIP revision

demonstrating attainment of the SO2

NAAQS in the Pine Bend Area by

September 1985.

The promulgation of a good

engineering practice stack height rule,

along with difficulties negotiating a

control strategy with Koch, and the

selection of an appropriate computer

model, delayed the submittal. On

September 10, 1987, MPCA submitted

revisions to the operating permits for

five sources and requested redesignation

to attainment for all of AQCR 131 except

the Pine Bend and St. Paul Park areas.

As a result of numerous EPA

comments, MPCA withdrew the Pine

Bend SO2 SIP while passage of the 1990

Amendments to the Act delayed action

on the rest of the SO2 revisions for

AQCR 131. On July 29, 1992, MPCA

submitted to EPA a revision to the SO2

SIP for the Dakota County/Pine Bend

SO2 nonattainment area demonstrating

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. As part

of the attainment demonstration for the

SIP, Koch was modeled for ambient air

impacts and MPCA issued an Order

based on that modeling. To allow some

flexibility in adding new sources at the

facility without compromising the

attainment status, the Order allows

Koch to make changes at the refinery of

2.28 lb/hour SO2 while burning refinery

fuel gas without revising the Order. An

amendment to the original Order for

Koch, dated February 11, 1993, revised

the completion dates for construction

and operation of a new stack and

control equipment.

EPA identified specific issues

regarding the July 29, 1992 submittal in

a June 4, 1993 letter to MPCA. On

January 28, 1994 (59 FR 4016), EPA

proposed to disapprove Minnesota’s

SO2 SIP revision for the Dakota County/

Pine Bend area of AQCR 131. However,

EPA stated that if its comments were

adequately addressed by the State by the

end of the 30-day comment period, and

if no other substantive, adverse public

comments were received, EPA would

proceed with a final rulemaking

approving the SIP revision. The State

satisfactorily addressed the issues and

submitted revised Orders for Koch to

EPA on February 25, 1994. EPA did not

receive any public comments on the

January 28, 1994 proposed action.

Therefore, EPA took final action on

September 9, 1994 (59 FR 46553), to

approve Minnesota’s SO2 SIP revision

submittals for the Dakota County/Pine

Bend area of AQCR 131.

On September 7, 1994, MPCA

submitted a request to redesignate the

Pine Bend area of AQCR 131 to

attainment. EPA approved the state’s

request in a direct final rule document

published on May 31, 1995 (60 FR

28339) redesignating the Pine Bend area

to attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.

II. Review of State Implementation Plan

Revision

1. Why Did the State Submit This SIP

Revision?

Koch initiated a project at its #2

Crude Unit to reduce emissions of

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2 as part

of a Consent Decree lodged in the

United States District Court for the

District of Minnesota on December 22,

2000 (United States v. Koch Petroleum

Group, L.P., Civil Action No. 00–2756–

PAM–SRN), relating to negotiations

conducted between Koch, EPA and

MPCA to develop a settlement covering

a broad range of actions to reduce

emissions of air pollutants from

petroleum refineries owned and

operated by Koch.

Koch will install a new heater (11H–

6) with low-NOX burners which will

operate on refinery fuel gas. The SO2

emissions from this new heater will be

offset by a simultaneous SO2 emissions

decrease resulting from the removal of

three existing heaters (11H–3, 11H–4

and 11H–5). Two of the three heaters to

be removed (11H–3 and 11H–5) are

currently allowed to burn fuel oil.

Replacing these existing heaters with a

new heater will significantly reduce

Koch’s capacity to generate both NOX

and SO2 emissions. As part of this

project, Koch also proposes to increase

the capacity of heater 16H–1, which it

converted to burn only fuel gas in 1995.

Prior to that, it could burn fuel oil as

well as fuel gas.

2. What Information Did Minnesota

Submit, and What Were Its Requests?

The December 20, 2000 SIP revision

submitted by MPCA consists of

emission increases and the

compensating emission reductions.

Amendment 4 to the Order for Koch

requires permanent emission reductions

from the removal of heaters 11H–3,

11H–4 and 11H–5. The modeling retains

some ambient impact from 11H–3 and

11H–5 (but not decoking), for PSD/NSR

credit purposes. The revised Order

limits 11H–6 to burning refinery fuel gas

only with allowable SO2 emissions of

6.0 lb/hr on an annual basis and 9.3 lb/

hr on a 3-hour average. Decoking at

11H–6 is limited to 90 hours per year,

which equates to three 30-hour events

per year. Emissions of SO2 from 11H–6

and the associated steam-air decoking

total 26.5 tons/year. The State requested

that EPA approve the following changes

to Koch’s Order:

‘‘New Project’’ Language. Koch plans

to remove three existing heaters,

increase the capacity of an existing

heater, and construct a new heater.

Total SO2 emissions at the facility will

substantially decrease after

implementation of these changes.

Name Change. The name of the owner

and operator of the refinery in

Rosemount, Minnesota has changed to

Koch Petroleum Group, L.P. from Koch

Refining Company.

Incorporation of Changes from

Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3

used underlining to identify where new

language was added and striking out to

identify where language was removed.

Amendment No. 4 removes the

underlining and strike out markings and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31547

eliminates the language marked for

removal in Amendment No. 3.

Updating of Some Information. In

cases where it was needed for clarity,

the language was modified to reflect

regulatory changes that have occurred

since Amendment No. 3 went into

effect.

Correction of Typographical Errors

and Changes for Clarification and

Consistency. MPCA corrected

typographical errors and changed

language which appeared unclear or

inconsistent with other portions of the

document.

3. How Does the SIP Revision Show

Attainment of the SO2 Standards?

The MPCA submitted air quality

modeling in support of Koch’s SO2 SIP

revision. MPCA’s modeling

demonstrates that the SO2 emissions

from the #2 Crude Unit modification

project do not threaten attainment of the

SO2 NAAQS when factored into the

1992 attainment demonstration

modeling. A more detailed discussion is

in EPA’s March 2, 2001 TSD.

Net baseline emissions are the

allowable emission rates used in the

approved 1992 SIP attainment

demonstration for the Pine Bend Area.

The SO2 emissions for the four heaters

and the steam—air decoking associated

with each heater totaled 1,560 tons/year

in the 1992 SIP. Total SO2 emissions

associated with the #2 Crude Unit

modification project are 170 tons/year.

The difference in SO2 emissions from

the 1992 SIP for the affected sources and

the current project is a decrease of

nearly 1,400 tons/year.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

EPA is approving the site-specific SIP

revision for Koch Petroleum Group, LP,

located in the Pine Bend area of

Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota.

Specifically, EPA is incorporating

Amendment No. 4 to Koch’s

Administrative Order into the

Minnesota SO2 SIP. The State submitted

this SIP revision on December 20, 2000

as a result of negotiations to a consent

decree between EPA, MPCA and Koch,

in which Koch proposed to modify the

#2 Crude Unit at the Pine Bend refinery.

This modification project consists

primarily of the removal of three

existing heaters and the installation of a

new heater, thereby substantially

decreasing SO2 emissions at the facility.

As described above, this project

provides for attainment and

maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in the

Pine Bend area and is therefore fully

approvable.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because we view

this as a noncontroversial amendment

and anticipate no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication, we

are publishing a separate document that

will serve as the proposal to approve the

state plan if relevant adverse comments

are filed. This rule will be effective

August 13, 2001 without further notice

unless we receive relevant adverse

comments by July 12, 2001. If we

receive such comments, we will

withdraw this action before the effective

date by publishing a subsequent

document that will withdraw the final

action. All public comments received

will then be addressed in a subsequent

final rule based on the proposed action.

The EPA will not institute a second

comment period. Any parties interested

in commenting on this action should do

so at this time. If we do not receive any

comments, this action will be effective

August 13, 2001.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the SIP shall be considered

separately in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this 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

preexisting 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 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 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. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: Rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

31548 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

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

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Norman Niedergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, chapter I, part 52, 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.

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(57) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(57) On December 20, 2000, the State

of Minnesota submitted a site-specific

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision for the control of emissions of

sulfur dioxide (SO2) for Koch Petroleum

Group, L.P., located in the Pine Bend

Area of Rosemount, Dakota County,

Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is

approving into the SO2 SIP Amendment

No. 4 to the Administrative Order

previously approved in paragraph

(c)(35) of this section.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) An administrative order identified

as Amendment Four to Findings and

Order by Stipulation, for Koch

Petroleum Group, L.P., dated and

effective December 19, 2000, submitted

December 20, 2000.

[FR Doc. 01–14614 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIP No. MT–001–0034a, MT–001–0035a;

FRL–6991–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Montana; Emergency Episode

Avoidance Plan and Cascade County

Open Burning Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action approving State Implementation

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the

State of Montana on February 9, 2001.

This submittal revises the State’s

Emergency Episode Avoidance Plan and

Cascade County’s Local Regulation

Chapter 7, Open Burning. In addition,

Billings and Great Falls Carbon

Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plans

were submitted on February 9, 2001.

EPA will act on the Billings and Great

Falls Plans at a later date. This action is

being taken under section 110 of the

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. section 7410.

DATES: This rule is effective on August

13, 2001 without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comment by July

12, 2001. If adverse comment is

received, 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 Richard R. Long, Director, Air

and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P–

AR, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite

300, Denver, Colorado, 80202. Copies of

the documents relevant to this action

are available for public inspection

during normal business hours at the Air

and Radiation Program, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th

Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado,

80202 and copies of the Incorporation

by Reference material are available at

the Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. Copies of the

State documents relevant to this action

are available for public inspection at the

Montana Department of Environmental

Quality, Air and Waste Management

Bureau, 1520 E. 6th Avenue, Helena,

Montana 59620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurie Ostrand, EPA, Region 8, (303)

312–6437.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the

purpose of this document, we are giving

meaning to certain words as follows: (a)

The words ‘‘EPA,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’

mean or refer to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency. (b)

The words State or Montana mean the

State of Montana unless the context

indicates otherwise. (c) The initials

MDEQ mean the Montana Department

of Environmental Quality.

I. Summary of SIP Revision

On February 9, 2001, the State of

Montana submitted a formal revision to

its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The

SIP revision consists of updates to the

Montana Emergency Episode Avoidance

Plan (EEAP) and Cascade County’s

Local Regulation Chapter 7, Open

Burning. Other revisions to the SIP were

also submitted on February 9, 2001 but

will be acted on at a later date.

Montana’s Emergency Episode

Avoidance Plan

The February 9, 2001 submittal

revises Montana’s Emergency Episode

Avoidance Plan (EEAP). The submittal

revises the priority classification of two

of the Air Quality Control Regions

(AQCR) based on more current ambient

data; replaces the references to the

National Weather Service with

references to the MDEQ meteorological

staff; and makes grammatical

corrections.

We last approved revisions to

Montana’s EEAP on December 6, 1999

(64 FR 68034). We are approving the

2001 revisions to Montana’s EEAP and

updating 40 CFR 52.1371 to indicate the

current emergency episode priority

classifications for the AQCRs.

Cascade County Air Pollution Control

Program Regulation Chapter 7, Open

Burning

In addition, the February 9, 2001

submittal revises the Cascade County

Air Pollution Control Program. The

submittal consists solely of Regulation

Chapter 7, Open Burning. The Cascade

County open burning regulations only

apply to minor open burning sources.

Major open burning sources are subject

to the State’s open burning regulations.

We believe it is appropriate to

incorporate local air pollution control

programs in the SIP if the program is

needed for attainment and maintenance

of any National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS). The State’s Group II

PM–10 SIP relies on many rules,