Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31573

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

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.

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed state regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined 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.). The State submittal

which 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.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, federal, state, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the state submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 920

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 22, 2001.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 01–14713 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN68–01b; FRL–6991–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to approve

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision for Dakota County, Minnesota,

for the control of emissions of sulfur

dioxide (SO2) in the Pine Bend Area of

Rosemount. The site-specific SIP

revision for Koch Petroleum Group, LP

(Koch) was submitted by the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency on December

20, 2000, and is approvable because it

satisfies the requirements of the Clean

Air Act. Specifically, EPA is proposing

to approve into the SO2 SIP Amendment

No. 4 to the Administrative Order for

Koch. In the final rules section of this

Federal Register, we are approving the

SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal, because we

view this as a noncontroversial revision

amendment and anticipate no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If we

receive adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. We will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Canton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), EPA Region

5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604–3590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christos Panos, Regulation Development

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

EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 353–8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, see the Direct

Final rule document which is located in

the Rules section of this Federal

Register. Copies of the request and the

EPA’s analysis are available for

inspection at the above address. (Please

telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353–

8328 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Norman Niedergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–14615 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIP NO. MT–001–0034b, MT–001–0035b;

FRL–6991–2]

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: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take

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

31574 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Local Regulation Chapter 7, Open

Burning. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of this Federal Register, EPA is

approving the State’s SIP revision as a

direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial SIP revision and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the preamble to the direct final

rule. If EPA receives no adverse

comments, EPA will not take further

action on this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, EPA will

withdraw the direct final rule and it will

not take effect. EPA will address all

public comments in a subsequent final

rule based on this proposed rule. EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting must do so at

this time. Please note that if EPA

receives adverse comment on an

amendment, paragraph, or section of

this rule and if that provision may be

severed from the remainder of the rule,

EPA may adopt as final those provisions

of the rule that are not the subject of an

adverse comment.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing on or before July 12, 2001.

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. 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: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action of the same title which is located

in the Rules and Regulations Section of

this Federal Register.

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

Dated: May 22, 2001.

Patricia D. Hull,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

[FR Doc. 01–14613 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN133–1b; FRL–6990–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; IN

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve revisions to particulate matter

(PM) regulations for Rolls-Royce Allison

(Rolls-Royce), formerly Allison Engine

Company. This facility is located in

Marion County, Indiana. The Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) submitted the

revised regulations on August 31, 2000

as a requested amendment to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The

revisions consist of a name change for

the company and the addition of a

provision that allows the facility to use

landfill gas as an alternate fuel. These

requested SIP revisions do not change

Rolls-Royce’s emissions limits.

DATES: The EPA must receive written

comments on this proposed rule by July

12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You should mail written

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

You may inspect copies of Indiana’s

submittal at: Regulation Development

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt

Rau, Environmental Engineer,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone

Number: (312) 886–6524, E-Mail

Address: rau.matthew@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What actions are EPA taking today?

II. Where can I find more information about

this proposal and the corresponding

direct final rule?

I. What Actions Are EPA Taking Today?

The EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the particulate matter

regulations for Rolls-Royce Allison in

Marion County, Indiana. IDEM

submitted the revised regulation on

August 31, 2000 as amendments to its

SIP.

The revisions are a name change for

the company and the addition of landfill

gas as an alternate fuel. These SIP

revisions result in no increase of

particulate matter emissions.

II. Where Can I Find More Information

About This Proposal and the

Corresponding Direct Final Rule?

For additional information see the

direct final rule published in the rules

section of this Federal Register.

Dated: May 9, 2001.

Norman Neidergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–14611 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH140–1b; FRL–6992–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; OH

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve revisions to sulfur dioxide

(SO2) emissions regulations for the

Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol) in Lake

County, Ohio. The Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)

submitted Director’s Final Findings and

Orders (Orders) for the Lubrizol facility

on November 9, 2000. These Orders are

revisions to the Ohio State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The

revisions are the adjustment of six shortterm emissions limits, the addition of an

annual emissions limit, and the addition

of a continuous emission rate

monitoring system (CERMS)

requirement for the facility. Three shortterm emissions limits are relaxed and

three short-term are tightened. There is

no increase in the total potential shortterm SO2 emissions.

DATES: The EPA must receive written

comments on this proposed rule by July

12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You should mail written

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.