Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19935 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 20, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08467 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0254; FRL–9926–00– 

Region 8] 

Determinations of Attainment of the 

1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Standards for the Libby, Montana 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to make two 

separate and independent 

determinations regarding the Libby, 

Montana nonattainment area for the 

1997 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). First, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Libby 

nonattainment area attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date, April 2010. This 

proposed determination is based on 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

quality data for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period. Second, EPA is 

proposing that the Libby nonattainment 

area has continued to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, based on qualityassured and certified ambient air quality 

data for the 2012–2014 monitoring 

period. Based on the second 

determination, EPA also proposes to 

suspend certain nonattainment area 

planning obligations. These 

determinations do not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment. The Libby 

nonattainment area will remain 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as 

EPA determines that the Libby 

nonattainment area meets the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements for 

redesignation to attainment, including 

an approved maintenance plan. These 

proposed actions are being taken under 

the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2014–0254, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014– 

0254. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19936 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the attainment 

date for a nonattainment area is ‘‘the date by which 

attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years from the 

date such area was designated nonattainment,’’ 

except that EPA may extend the attainment date as 

appropriate ‘‘for a period no greater than 10 years 

from the date of designation as nonattainment, 

considering the severity of nonattainment and the 

availability and feasibility of pollution control 

measures.’’ 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6602, 

ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. The PM2.5 NAAQS 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

established a health-based PM2.5

NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 

(‘‘the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS’’ or 

‘‘the 1997 annual standard’’). At that 

time, EPA also established a 24-hour 

standard of 65 mg/m3 (the ‘‘1997 24-hour 

standard’’). See 40 CFR 50.7. On 

October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

at 15 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and promulgated a 24-hour standard of 

35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations (the ‘‘2006 24-hour 

standard’’). 

On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), 

EPA lowered the primary annual PM2.5

NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 mg/m3. EPA 

retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 1997 secondary annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also retained the 

existing standards for coarse particulate 

pollution (PM10). This rulemaking 

action proposes determinations solely 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. It 

does not address the 1997 or 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards or the 2012 PM2.5

annual NAAQS. 

B. The Libby Nonattainment Area 

On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA 

promulgated our air quality 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

based upon air quality monitoring data 

for calendar years 2001–2003. These 

designations became effective on April 

5, 2005. The Libby nonattainment area 

is comprised of the City of Libby within 

Lincoln County. See 40 CFR 81.327. 

In response, the State of Montana 

submitted State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions on June 26, 2006 and 

March 26, 2008 intended to meet 

planning requirements for the Libby 

nonattainment area. In particular, based 

on section 172(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and 

the April 5, 2005 effective date of 

designation as nonattainment, the 

attainment plan identified April 2010 as 

the applicable attainment date.1 The 

state’s attainment plan accordingly 

showed attainment by that date. 

On September 14, 2010 (75 FR 55713), 

EPA proposed to approve Montana’s 

attainment plan. EPA proposed this 

action in accordance with the ‘‘Final 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule,’’ 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007), 

which EPA issued to assist states in 

their development of SIPs to meet the 

Act’s attainment planning requirements 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We received 

no adverse comments on our proposal, 

which we finalized on March 17, 2011 

(76 FR 14584). 

III. Summary of Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing two separate and 

independent determinations regarding 

the Libby nonattainment area. First, 

pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the 

CAA, EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Libby 

nonattainment area attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the area’s 

attainment date, April 2010. This 

proposed determination is based upon 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period that shows the area 

has monitored attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 annual NAAQS for that period. 

EPA is also proposing to make a 

determination that the Libby 

nonattainment area continues to attain 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

proposed ‘‘clean data’’ determination is 

based upon quality-assured and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

that shows the area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the 2012–2014 monitoring period. If 

EPA finalizes this determination, any 

remaining requirements for the Libby 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19937 

2Even if these requirements are suspended, EPA 

is not precluded from acting upon these elements 

at any time if submitted by the State to EPA for 

review and approval. 

3The Libby nonattainment area monitor had less 

than complete data capture in 2011, due to quality 

assurance issues. 

nonattainment area under subpart 4, 

part D, title I of the CAA regarding an 

attainment demonstration, reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), 

reasonable further progress (RFP), and 

contingency measures related to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS shall be suspended for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 

NAAQS.2

IV. EPA’s Analysis of the Relevant Air 

Quality Data 

The Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

submitted quality-assured air quality 

monitoring data into the EPA Air 

Quality System (AQS) database for 

2007–2009 and subsequently certified 

that data. EPA’s evaluation of this data 

shows that the Libby nonattainment 

area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by April 2010. Additionally, 

the data set from the three most recent 

years, 2012–2014 (which is also qualityassured and certified), shows that the 

Libby nonattainment area continues to 

attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The data is summarized in Tables 1 and 

2 below. Additional information on the 

air quality data found in AQS for the 

Libby nonattainment area can be found 

in the docket for this action. 

The criteria for determining if an area 

is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS are set out in 40 CFR 50.13 and 

40 CFR part 50, Appendix N. The 1997 

annual PM2.5 primary and secondary 

standards are met when the annual 

design value is less than or equal to 15.0 

mg/m3. Three years of valid annual 

means are required to produce a valid 

annual standard design value. A year 

meets data completeness requirements 

when at least 75 percent of the 

scheduled sampling days for each 

quarter have valid data. The use of less 

than complete data is subject to the 

approval of EPA, which may consider 

factors such as monitoring site closures/ 

moves, monitoring diligence, and 

nearby concentrations in determining 

whether to use such data. 

This proposed determination of 

attainment for the Libby nonattainment 

area is based on EPA’s evaluation of 

quality-controlled, quality-assured, and 

certified annual PM2.5 air quality data 

for the 2007–2009 and 2012–2014 

monitoring periods. There is one PM2.5

monitor in the Libby nonattainment area 

(AQS Site ID 30–053–0018). This 

monitor had complete data for all 

quarters in the years 2007 through 2014, 

except for one calendar quarter in 

2011.3 The monitoring data and 

calculated design values for the Libby 

nonattainment area are summarized in 

Table 1 for the 2007–2009 monitoring 

period and in Table 2 for the 2012–2014 

monitoring period. 

TABLE 1—2007–2009 LIBBY NONATTAINMENT AREA ANNUAL PM2.5 MONITORING DATA AND COMPLETENESS

Location Site ID 

Annual mean 2007–2009 

Design Value 

(μg/m3) 

Complete quarters Complete 

data? 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 

City of Libby .............. 30–053–0018 13.0 12.9 10.7 12.2 4 4 4 Yes. 

TABLE 2—2012–2014 LIBBY NONATTAINMENT AREA ANNUAL PM2.5 MONITORING DATA AND COMPLETENESS

Location Site ID 

Annual mean 2007–2009 

Design Value 

(μg/m3) 

Complete quarters Complete 

data? 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 

City of Libby .............. 30–053–0018 11.3 10.9 9.3 10.5 4 4 4 Yes. 

Consistent with the requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has 

reviewed the PM2.5 ambient air 

monitoring data for the monitoring 

periods 2007–2009 and 2012–2014 for 

the Libby nonattainment area, as 

recorded in the AQS database. On the 

basis of that review, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Libby nonattainment 

area (1) attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by the attainment date, based 

on data for the 2007–2009 monitoring 

period, and (2) continued to attain 

during the 2012–2014 monitoring 

period. 

V. Effect of Proposed Determinations of 

Attainment for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of 

the CAA (Subpart 4) 

This section and section VI of EPA’s 

proposal addresses the effects of a final 

clean data determination and a final 

determination of attainment by the 

attainment date for the Libby 

nonattainment area. For the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard, EPA’s ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule,’’ 72 

FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007), embodied 

EPA’s ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

interpretation under subpart 1 of Part D 

of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1). As 

promulgated by the rule, the provisions 

of 40 CFR 51.004 set forth the effects of 

a determination of attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. 

On January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the D.C. 

Circuit remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule’’ and the ‘‘Implementation of the 

New Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ final rule, 73 FR 

28321 (May 16, 2008) (collectively, 

‘‘1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’ or 

‘‘Implementation Rule’’). The Court 

found that EPA erred in implementing 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant solely 

to the general implementation 

provisions of subpart 1, part D, title I of 

the CAA, rather than the particulatematter-specific provisions of subpart 4. 

The Court remanded EPA’s 

Implementation Rule for further 

proceedings consistent with the Court’s 

decision. 

In light of the Court’s decision and its 

remand of the Implementation Rule, 

EPA finalized the ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadlines for Submission of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions 

for the 1997 Fine Particulate (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS’’ on 

June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), (‘‘PM2.5

Classification and Deadline Rule’’). This 

rulemaking classified the Libby 

nonattainment area as ‘‘Moderate’’ for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Under 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19938 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4 ‘‘EPA’s Final Rule to implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardPhase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule)’’ (70 FR 71612, 71645– 

46; November 29, 2005). 

section 188 of the CAA, all areas 

designated nonattainment under subpart 

4 would initially be classified by 

operation of law as ‘‘Moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

Moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment area or 

redesignates the area to attainment. 

Accordingly, it is appropriate to limit 

the evaluation of the potential impact of 

subpart 4 requirements to those that 

would be applicable to Moderate 

nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) 

and (c) of subpart 4 apply to Moderate 

nonattainment areas and include an 

attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and quantitative 

milestones demonstrating RFP toward 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date (section 189(c)). 

As set forth in more detail below, 

under EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

interpretation, a determination that the 

area has attained the standard suspends 

the state’s obligation to submit 

attainment-related planning 

requirements of subpart 4 (and the 

applicable provisions of subpart 1) for 

so long as the area continues to attain 

the standard. These include 

requirements to submit an attainment 

demonstration, RFP, RACM, and 

contingency measures, because the 

purpose of these provisions is to help 

reach attainment, a goal which has 

already been achieved. 

A. Background on Clean Data Policy 

Over the past two decades, EPA has 

consistently applied its Clean Data 

Policy interpretation to attainmentrelated provisions of subparts 1, 2, and 

4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject 

of several EPA memoranda and 

regulations. In addition, numerous 

individual rulemakings published in the 

Federal Register have applied the 

interpretation to a spectrum of NAAQS, 

including the 1-hour and 1997 ozone, 

PM10, PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO) and 

lead (Pb) standards. The D.C. Circuit has 

upheld the Clean Data Policy 

interpretation as embodied in EPA’s 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Implementation 

Rule, 40 CFR 51.918.4 NRDC v. EPA, 571 

F. 3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other U.S. 

Circuit Courts of Appeals that have 

considered and reviewed EPA’s Clean 

Data Policy interpretation have upheld 

it and the rulemakings applying EPA’s 

interpretation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 

3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our 

Children’s Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 

04–73032 (9th Cir. June 28, 2005) 

(memorandum opinion); Latino Issues 

Forum, v. EPA, Nos. 06–75831 and 08– 

71238 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2009) 

(memorandum opinion). 

As noted above, EPA incorporated its 

Clean Data Policy interpretation in both 

its 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule 

and in its PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 

While the D.C. Circuit, in its January 4, 

2013 decision, remanded the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court did not 

address the merits of that portion of the 

rule, nor cast doubt on EPA’s existing 

interpretation of the statutory 

provisions. 

However, in light of the Court’s 

decision, EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

interpretation under subpart 4 is set 

forth here, for the purpose of identifying 

the effects of a determination of 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard for the Libby nonattainment 

area. EPA has previously articulated its 

Clean Data interpretation under subpart 

4 in implementing the PM10 standard. 

See, e.g., 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) 

(determination of attainment of the 

PM10 standard in Coso Junction, 

California); 71 FR 6352 (Feb. 8, 2006) 

(Ajo, Arizona Area); 71 FR 13021 (Mar. 

14, 2006) (Yuma, Arizona Area); 71 FR 

40023 (July 14, 2006) (Weirton, West 

Virginia Area); 71 FR 44920 (Aug. 8, 

2006) (Rillito, Arizona Area); 71 FR 

63642 (Oct. 30, 2006) (San Joaquin 

Valley, California Area); 72 FR 14422 

(Mar. 28, 2007) (Miami, Arizona Area); 

75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso 

Junction, California Area). Thus, EPA 

has repeatedly established that, under 

subpart 4, an attainment determination 

suspends the obligations to submit an 

attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, 

contingency measures, and other 

measures related to attainment. 

B. Application of the Clean Data Policy 

to Attainment-Related Provisions of 

Subpart 4 

In EPA’s proposed and final 

rulemaking actions determining that the 

San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area 

attained the PM10 standard, EPA set 

forth at length its rationale for applying 

the Clean Data Policy to PM10 under 

subpart 4. The Ninth Circuit upheld 

EPA’s final rulemaking, and specifically 

EPA’s Clean Data Policy, in the context 

of subpart 4. Latino Issues Forum v. 

EPA, Nos. 06–75831 and 08–71238 (9th 

Cir. Mar. 2, 2009) (memorandum 

opinion). In rejecting the petitioner’s 

challenge to the Clean Data Policy under 

subpart 4 for PM10, the Ninth Circuit 

stated, ‘‘As the EPA explained, if an area 

is in compliance with PM10 standards, 

then further progress for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment is not necessary.’’ 

The general requirements of subpart 1 

apply in conjunction with the more 

specific requirements of subpart 4, to 

the extent they are not superseded or 

subsumed by the subpart 4 

requirements. Subpart 1 contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See section 172(c). 

Subpart 4, itself, contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 nonattainment areas, and 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (Apr. 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM10

requirements.’’ Id. at 13538. These 

subpart 1 requirements include, among 

other things, provisions for attainment 

demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions 

inventories, and contingency measures. 

EPA has long interpreted the 

provisions of subpart 1 (section 171 and 

172) as not requiring the submission of 

RFP for an area already attaining the 

ozone NAAQS. For an area that is 

attaining, showing that the state will 

make RFP towards attainment ‘‘will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that 

point.’’ General Preamble, 57 FR 13564. 

See also 71 FR 40952 (July 19, 2006) and 

71 FR 63642 (October 30, 2006) 

(proposed and final determination of 

attainment for San Joaquin Valley); 75 

FR 13710 (March 23, 2010) and 75 FR 

27944 (May 19, 2010) (proposed and 

final determination of attainment for 

Coso Junction). 

Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 states 

that: 

Plan revisions demonstrating attainment 

submitted to the Administrator for approval 

under this subpart shall contain quantitative 

milestones which are to be achieved every 3 

years until the area is redesignated 

attainment and which demonstrate 

reasonable further progress, as defined in 

section [section 171(1)] of this title, toward 

attainment by the applicable date. 

With respect to RFP, section 171(1) 

states that, for purposes of part D, RFP 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19939 

5Thus, EPA believes that it is a distinction 

without a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of 

the RFP requirement as one to be achieved until an 

area is ‘‘redesignated attainment,’’ as opposed to 

section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to 

which the requirement pertains, or the ozone 

nonattainment area RFP requirements in sections 

182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which refer to the RFP 

requirements as applying until the ‘‘attainment 

date,’’ since section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by 

reference to section 171(1) of the CAA. The 

reference to section 171(1) clarifies that, as with the 

general RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) and 

the ozone-specific requirements of section 182(b)(1) 

and 182(c)(2), the PM-specific requirements may 

only be required ‘‘for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment of the applicable national ambient air 

quality standard by the applicable date.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7501(1). As discussed in the text of this rulemaking, 

EPA interprets the RFP requirements, in light of the 

definition of RFP in section 171(1), and 

incorporated in section 189(c)(1), to be a 

requirement that no longer applies once the 

standard has been attained. 6And section 182(c)(9) for ozone. 

‘‘means such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutant as are required by this part 

or may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS by the applicable date.’’ Thus, 

whether dealing with the general RFP 

requirement of section 172(c)(2), the 

ozone-specific RFP requirements of 

sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific 

RFP requirements for PM10 areas of 

section 189(c)(1), the stated purpose of 

RFP is to ensure attainment by the 

applicable attainment date. 

Although section 189(c) states that 

revisions shall contain milestones 

which are to be achieved until the area 

is redesignated to attainment, such 

milestones are designed to show RFP 

‘‘toward attainment by the applicable 

attainment date,’’ as defined by section 

171. Thus, it is clear that once the area 

has attained the standard, no further 

milestones are necessary or meaningful. 

This interpretation is supported by 

language in section 189(c)(3), which 

mandates that a state that fails to 

achieve a milestone must submit a plan 

that assures that the state will achieve 

the milestone or attain the NAAQS if 

there is no next milestone. Section 

189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement 

to submit and achieve milestones does 

not continue after attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

In the General Preamble, EPA noted 

with respect to section 189(c) that the 

purpose of the milestone requirement 

‘‘is to ‘provide for emission reductions 

adequate to achieve the standards by the 

applicable attainment date’ (H.R. Rep. 

No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 

(1990)).’’ 57 FR 13539. If an area has in 

fact attained the standard, the stated 

purpose of the RFP requirement will 

have already been fulfilled.5

Similarly, the requirements of section 

189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no 

longer apply so long as an area has 

attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) 

provides in relevant part that: 

Not later than 90 days after the date on which 

a milestone applicable to the area occurs, 

each State in which all or part of such area 

is located shall submit to the Administrator 

a demonstration . . . that the milestone has 

been met. 

Where the area has attained the 

standard and there are no further 

milestones, there is no further 

requirement to make a submission 

showing that such milestones have been 

met. This is consistent with the position 

that EPA took with respect to the 

general RFP requirement of section 

172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General 

Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995 

EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstrations, and 

Related Requirements for the Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas Meeting the 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard,’’ (the ‘‘1995 Seitz 

memorandum’’) with respect to the 

requirements of section 182(b) and (c). 

In the 1995 Seitz memorandum, EPA 

also noted that section 182(g), the 

milestone requirement of subpart 2, 

which is analogous to provisions in 

section 189(c), is suspended upon a 

determination that an area has attained. 

The memorandum, also citing 

additional provisions related to 

attainment demonstration and RFP 

requirements, stated: 

Inasmuch as each of these requirements is 

linked with the attainment demonstration or 

RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 

182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the 

requirement to submit the underlying 

attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it 

need not submit the related SIP submission 

either. See, 1995 Seitz memorandum at page 

5. 

With respect to the attainment 

demonstration requirements of section 

172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B), an 

analogous rationale leads to the same 

result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that 

the plan provide for ‘‘a demonstration 

(including air quality modeling) that the 

[SIP] will provide for attainment by the 

applicable attainment date . . .’’ As 

with the RFP requirements, if an area is 

already monitoring attainment of the 

standard, EPA believes there is no need 

for an area to make a further submission 

containing additional measures to 

achieve attainment. This is also 

consistent with the interpretation of the 

section 172(c) requirements provided by 

EPA in the General Preamble, and the 

section 182(b) and (c) requirements set 

forth in the 1995 Seitz memorandum. 

As EPA stated in the General Preamble, 

no other measures to provide for 

attainment would be needed by areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment 

since ‘‘attainment will have been 

reached.’’ 57 FR 13564. 

Other SIP submission requirements 

are linked with these attainment 

demonstration and RFP requirements, 

and similar reasoning applies to them. 

These requirements include the 

contingency measure requirements of 

sections 172(c)(9). EPA has interpreted 

the contingency measure requirements 

of sections 172(c)(9) 6 as no longer 

applying when an area has attained the 

standard because those ‘‘contingency 

measures are directed at ensuring RFP 

and attainment by the applicable date.’’ 

57 FR 13564; 1995 Seitz memorandum, 

pp. 5–6. 

Section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in 

nonattainment areas: 

. . . shall provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if the area 

fails to make reasonable further progress, or 

to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date 

applicable under this part. Such measures 

shall be included in the plan revision as 

contingency measures to take effect in any 

such case without further action by the State 

or [EPA]. 

The contingency measure requirement 

is inextricably tied to the RFP and 

attainment demonstration requirements. 

Contingency measures are implemented 

if RFP targets are not achieved, or if 

attainment is not realized by the 

attainment date. Where an area has 

already achieved attainment by the 

attainment date, it has no need to rely 

on contingency measures to come into 

attainment or to make further progress 

to attainment. As EPA stated in the 

General Preamble: ‘‘The section 

172(c)(9) requirements for contingency 

measures are directed at ensuring RFP 

and attainment by the applicable date.’’ 

See 57 FR 13564. Thus these 

requirements no longer apply when an 

area has attained the standard. 

Both sections 172(c)(1) and 

189(a)(1)(C) require ‘‘provisions to 

assure that reasonably available control 

measures’’ (i.e., RACM) are 

implemented in a nonattainment area. 

The General Preamble, (57 FR 13560; 

April 16, 1992), states that EPA 

interprets section 172(c)(1) so that 

RACM requirements are a ‘‘component’’ 

of an area’s attainment demonstration. 

Thus, for the same reason the 

attainment demonstration no longer 

applies by its own terms, the 

requirement for RACM no longer 

applies. EPA has consistently 

interpreted this provision to require 

only implementation of potential RACM 

measures that could contribute to RFP 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19940 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7EPA’s interpretation that the statute requires 

implementation only of RACM measures that would 

advance attainment was upheld by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743–745 (5th Cir. 2002), 

and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit, Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162–163 

(D.C. Cir. 2002). 

8EPA’s approval did not specifically identify the 

fifth of April as the attainment date. Regardless of 

the specific day in April, the monitoring data from 

the 2007–2009 period shows attainment by April 

2010. 

or to attainment. General Preamble, 57 

FR 13498. Thus, where an area is 

already attaining the standard, no 

additional RACM measures are 

required.7 EPA is interpreting section 

189(a)(1)(C) consistent with its 

interpretation of section 172(c)(1). 

The suspension of the obligations to 

submit SIP revisions concerning these 

RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, 

contingency measure and other related 

requirements exists only for as long as 

the area continues to monitor 

attainment of the standard. If EPA 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, that the area has monitored 

a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for 

the requirements being suspended 

would no longer exist. In that case, the 

area would again be subject to a 

requirement to submit the pertinent SIP 

revision or revisions and would need to 

address those requirements. Thus, a 

final determination that the area need 

not submit one of the pertinent SIP 

submittals amounts to no more than a 

suspension of the requirements for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. Only if and when EPA 

redesignates the area to attainment 

would the area be relieved of these 

submission obligations. Attainment 

determinations under the Clean Data 

Policy do not shield an area from 

obligations unrelated to attainment in 

the area, such as provisions to address 

pollution transport. 

As set forth previously, based on our 

proposed determination that the Libby 

nonattainment area is currently 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA proposes to find that any 

remaining obligations under subpart 4 

to submit planning provisions to meet 

the requirements for an attainment 

demonstration, RFP plans, RACM, and 

contingency measures are suspended for 

so long as the area continues to monitor 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. If in the future, EPA 

determines after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking that the area again violates 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

basis for suspending the attainment 

demonstration, RFP, RACM, and 

contingency measure obligations would 

no longer exist. 

VI. Determination of Attainment by the 

Attainment Date 

As discussed in the Background 

section, on March 17, 2011 EPA 

approved April 2010 as the applicable 

attainment date for the Libby 

nonattainment area.8 Consistent with 

the D.C. Circuit’s 2013 decision and its 

remand of the Implementation Rule, on 

June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA 

published a final rule classifying all 

areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 

PM2.5 standards as Moderate under 

subpart 4. EPA also established a 

deadline of December 31, 2014 for states 

to submit attainment-related and 

nonattainment new source review SIP 

elements required for these areas under 

subpart 4. This rulemaking did not 

affect any action that EPA had 

previously taken under section 110(k) of 

the Act on a SIP for a PM2.5

nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA’s 

March 17, 2011 approval of the April 

2010 attainment date for the Libby 

nonattainment area remains in effect. 

Based on monitoring data from 2007– 

2009, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Libby nonattainment area 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

by that attainment date. If we finalize 

this proposal, this will discharge EPA’s 

obligation under CAA section 188(b)(2) 

to determine whether the area attained 

the standard by the applicable 

attainment date. 

VII. Proposed Action 

Pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the 

CAA, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Libby nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the area’s attainment date, April 

2010. Separately and independently, 

EPA is proposing to determine, based on 

the most recent three years of qualityassured and certified data meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix N, that the Libby 

nonattainment area is currently 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. In conjunction with and based 

upon our proposed determination that 

the Libby nonattainment area has 

attained and is currently attaining the 

standard, EPA proposes to determine 

that any remaining obligations under 

subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA to 

submit the following attainment-related 

planning requirements are not 

applicable for so long as the area 

continues to attain the PM2.5 standard: 

An attainment demonstration pursuant 

to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM 

provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C), and 

the RFP provisions of section 189(c). 

This proposed rulemaking action, if 

finalized, would not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3). These proposed 

determinations are based upon qualityassured and quality certified ambient air 

monitoring data that show the area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2007–2009 

and 2012–2014 monitoring periods. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

This rulemaking action proposes to 

make determinations of attainment 

based on air quality data, and would, if 

finalized, result in the suspension of 

certain federal requirements and would 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed 

determinations of attainment: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19941 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: March 25, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08405 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 13–184 and 10–90; Report 

No. 3017] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration 

(Petitions) have been filed in the 

Commission’s Rulemaking proceeding 

by Charles F. Hobbs, on behalf of 

AdTec, Inc.; Jennifer Hightower, et al., 

on behalf of Cox Communications, Inc.; 

Kathleen O’Brien Ham, et al., on behalf 

of T-Mobile USA, Inc.; and Derrick B. 

Owens, et al., on behalf of WTA— 

Advocates for Rural Broadband, et al. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed on or before April 29, 

2015. Replies to an opposition must be 

filed on or before May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bryan P. Boyle, Telecommunications 

Access Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7924, 

email: Bryan.Boyle@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 3017, released April 8, 2015. 

The full text of Report No. 3017 is 

available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC or may be accessed 

online via the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System at http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will 

not send a copy of this Notice pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because this notice 

does not have an impact on any rules of 

particular applicability. 

Subject: Modernization of the Schools 

and Libraries ‘‘E-Rate’’ Program, 

published at 80 FR 5961, February 4, 

2015, in WC Docket Nos. 13–184 and 

10–90, and published pursuant to 47 

CFR 1.429(e). See also § 1.4(b)(1) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 4. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08510 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0002; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AZ23 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the January 25, 2013, proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus 

discobolus yarrowi) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis, draft environmental 

assessment, and amended required 

determinations of the proposed 

designation. In addition, we are 

proposing revisions to the proposed 

critical habitat boundaries that would 

decrease our total proposed critical 

habitat designation for the Zuni 

bluehead sucker from approximately 

475.3 kilometers (291.3 miles) to 

approximately 228.4 kilometers (141.9 

miles). We are reopening the comment 

period to allow all interested parties an 

opportunity to comment simultaneously 

on the revisions to the proposed critical 

habitat designation described in this 

document, the associated draft 

economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment, and the 

amended required determinations 

section. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted, as 

they will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 14, 2015. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. Any comments that we receive 

after the closing date may not be 

considered in the final decision on this 

action. 

ADDRESSES: 

Document availability: You may 

obtain copies of the proposed rule, the 

draft economic analysis, and the draft 

environmental assessment on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0002 or 

by mail from the New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Written comments: You may submit 

written comments by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

on the critical habitat proposal, draft 

economic analysis, and draft 

environmental assessment by searching 

for Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0002, 

which is the docket for this rulemaking. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit comments 

on the critical habitat proposal, draft 

economic analysis, and draft 

environmental assessment by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2013– 

0002; Division of Policy, Performance, 

and Management Programs; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg 

Pike MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section, below, for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 

2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 

87113; by telephone 505–346–2525; or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS