        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453, FRL-9616-1]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Vermont: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority and Tailoring Rule

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Vermont State Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to regulation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under Vermont's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This revision was submitted by Vermont, through the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC), Air Pollution Control Division on February 14, 2011. It is intended to align Vermont's regulations with EPA's “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.” EPA is proposing to approve the revision because the Agency has made the preliminary determination that the SIP revision, already adopted by Vermont as a final effective rule, is in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. The SIP submittal also contains proposed amendments to several other sections of Vermont's SIP not directly related to GHG permitting which EPA is not acting on at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453, by one of the following methods:
          1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. Email: dahl.donald@epa.govmailto:.

          3. Fax: (617) 918-0657.
          4. Mail: “Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453”, Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
          5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. “EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0453.” EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 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 through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The 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 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 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 information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
          In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical support document are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; Air Pollution Control Division, Agency of Natural Resources, 186 Mad River Park, Waitsfield, VT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For information regarding the Vermont SIP, contact Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Mr. Dahl's telephone number is (617) 918-1657; email address: dahl.donald@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?
          II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in this document?
          A. GHG-related Actions
          B. Vermont's Actions
          III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's SIP revision?
          A. Greenhouse Gases
          B. Other Revisions Adopted by Vermont
          IV. Proposed Action
          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. What action is EPA proposing in this document?
        On February 14, 2011, the State of Vermont submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions establish thresholds for GHG emissions in Vermont's PSD regulations at the same emissions thresholds and in the same time-frames as those specified by EPA in the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule” (75 FR 31514), hereafter referred to as the “Tailoring Rule,” ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements for GHGs that they emit. The revisions to the SIP clarify the applicable thresholds in the Vermont SIP, and address the flaw discussed in the “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010) (the “PSD SIP Narrowing Rule”). In today's action, pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve these revisions into the Vermont SIP.
        EPA is not proposing to take action on various other revisions to Vermont's state implementation plan contained in the February 14, 2011 submittal. Those are changes to Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations, Chapter 5, Sections 5-101 (changes to the definitions of Emergency use engine, Federal Land Manager, and Public Notice), 5-251, 5-252, 5-401 (except for 5-401(16)), 5-402, 5-404, 5-406, 5-501, and 5-502.
        II. What is the background for the action by EPA in this document?
        This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions that provide the background for today's proposed action. More detailed discussion of the background is found in the preambles for those actions. In particular, the background is contained in what we call the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,1
           and in the preambles to the actions cited therein.

            1 “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.” 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 2010).

        A. GHG-Related Actions
        EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one another, establish the overall framework for today's proposed action on the Vermont SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly called, the “Endangerment Finding” and “Cause or Contribute Finding,” which EPA issued in a single final action,2
           the “Johnson Memo Reconsideration,” 3
           the “Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,” 4

           and the “Tailoring Rule.” Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more specifically, established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.

            2 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” 74 FR 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009).

            3 “Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.” 75 FR 17004 (Apr. 2, 2010).

            4 “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.” 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).

        PSD is implemented through the SIP system. In December 2010, EPA promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program. Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call and, for some of these states, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).5
           Recognizing that other states had approved SIP PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 tpy of GHG, and that do not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs to the extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the “error correction” provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).

            5 Specifically, by notice dated December 13, 2010, EPA finalized a “SIP Call” that would require those states with SIPs that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. “Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,” 75 FR 77698 (Dec. 13, 2010). EPA has made findings of failure to submit that would apply in any state unable to submit the required SIP revision by its deadline, and finalized FIPs for such states. See, e.g., “Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,” 75 FR 81874 (Dec. 29, 2010); “Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,” 75 FR 82246 (Dec. 30, 2010). Because Vermont's SIP already authorizes Vermont to regulate GHGs once GHGs became subject to PSD requirements on January 2, 2011, Vermont was not subject to the proposed SIP Call or FIP.

        B. Vermont's Actions
        On July 22, 2010, Vermont provided a letter to EPA, in accordance with a request to all States from EPA in the Tailoring Rule, with confirmation that the State has the authority to regulate GHG in its PSD program. The letter also confirmed that current Vermont rules require regulating GHGs at the existing 50 tpy threshold, rather than at the higher thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See the docket for this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Vermont's letter.
        In the SIP Narrowing Rule, published on December 30, 2010, EPA withdrew its approval of Vermont's SIP (among other SIPs) to the extent the SIP applies PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions from sources emitting at levels below those set in the Tailoring Rule.6
           As a result, Vermont's current approved SIP provides the state with authority to regulate GHGs, but only at and above the Tailoring Rule thresholds; and requires new and modified sources to receive a federal PSD permit based on GHG emissions only if they emit at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.

            6 “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.” 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 2010).

        The basis for this SIP revision is that limiting PSD applicability to GHG sources to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is consistent with the SIP provisions that provide required assurances of adequate resources, and thereby addresses the flaw in the SIP that led to the SIP Narrowing Rule. Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) includes as a requirement for SIP approval that States provide “necessary assurances that the State * * * will have adequate personnel [and] funding * * * to carry out such [SIP].” In the Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher thresholds for PSD applicability to GHG-emitting sources on grounds that the states generally did not have adequate resources to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds,7
           and no State, including Vermont, asserted that it did have adequate resources to do so.8
           In the SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found that the affected states, including Vermont, had a flaw in their SIPs at the time they submitted their PSD programs, which was that the applicability of the PSD programs was potentially broader than the resources available to them under their SIPs.9
           Accordingly, for each affected state, including Vermont, EPA concluded that EPA's action in approving the SIP was in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA rescinded its approval to the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.10
           EPA recommended that States adopt a SIP revision to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that under State law, only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding confusion under the Federally approved SIP by clarifying that the SIP applies to only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.11

            7 Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31517.

            8 SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82540.

            9 Id. at 82542.

            10 Id. at 82544.

            11 Id. at 82540.

        III. What is EPA's analysis of Vermont's SIP revision?
        The regulatory revisions that VT DEC submitted on February 14, 2011 establish thresholds for determining which stationary sources and modification projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Vermont's PSD program. The revisions also include unrelated changes to other portions of the Vermont air permitting regulations. Specifically, the submittal includes changes to Vermont's regulations at Chapter 5, Air Pollution Control, Subchapter I (Definitions), Subchapter II (Prohibitions), Subchapter IV (Operations and Procedures), and Subchapter V (Review of New Air Contaminant Sources).
        Vermont is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program. In a letter provided to EPA on July 22, 2010, Vermont notified EPA of its interpretation that the State currently has the authority to regulate GHGs under its PSD regulations. The current Vermont program (adopted prior to the promulgation of EPA's Tailoring Rule) applies to major stationary sources (having the potential to emit at least 50 tpy or more of a regulated NSR pollutant) or major modifications constructing in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS.
        The amendments to Subchapter I that EPA is proposing to approve into Vermont's SIP include: new definitions of “Greenhouse Gases” and “Subject to Regulation,” amendments to the definition of “Major Stationary Source,” and the addition of a provision regarding significance levels of greenhouse gases to the definition of “Significant.” EPA is also proposing to approve the classification of certain sources of greenhouse gas emissions as air contaminant sources in Subchapter IV, section 5-401(16).
        A. Greenhouse Gases

        The changes to Vermont's PSD program regulations regarding greenhouse gases are in most respects substantively the same as the amendments to the federal PSD regulatory provisions in EPA's Tailoring Rule. However, there are several issues that we note here.
        First, Vermont submitted as part of its SIP revision its entire definition of “significant” in Section 5-101, not just the addition made to address greenhouse gases. Vermont's definition of “significant” in Section 5-101 departs from EPA's definition of “significant” at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23) in two ways. On the one hand, Vermont provides significance levels for several pollutants (asbestos, mercury, beryllium, and vinyl chloride) that are not listed in the federal regulation. On the other hand, Vermont fails to provide significance levels for several pollutants (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter, municipal waste combustor organics, municipal waste combustor metals, municipal waste combustor acid gases, and municipal solid waste landfill emissions) that are listed in the federal regulation. In the first case, the issue is moot because asbestos, mercury compounds, beryllium compounds, and vinyl chloride are all listed as hazardous air pollutants under Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act, and Section 112(b)(6) provides that PSD does not apply to hazardous air pollutants listed under Section 112. In the case of the other pollutants, however, the situation is more complex. Vermont's regulation neither specifically provides significance levels for these pollutants (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter, municipal waste combustor organics, municipal waste combustor metals, municipal waste combustor acid gases, and municipal solid waste landfill emissions) nor provides a default significance threshold of zero. Therefore, Vermont's regulation fails to require application of best available control technology for emissions of these pollutants at any level—even at major source levels. See Section 5-502(3)(a)(i)-(ii) (applying control technology requirement only to emissions that are “significant”).
        Despite this flaw, EPA is nonetheless proposing approval of Vermont's SIP revision. The revised definition adds a significance threshold for “greenhouse gases,” which does not exist in the currently approved SIP, and the lack of significance thresholds for particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter, municipal waste combustor organics, municipal waste combustor metals, municipal waste combustor acid gases, and municipal solid waste landfill emissions is a continuation from the currently approved SIP, not a new flaw. For that reason, EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's SIP revision as “SIP strengthening.”

        Several lesser issues require discussion regarding EPA's proposed interpretation of the Vermont regulation. First, Vermont defines “greenhouse gases” in Section 5-101 as “carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and any other chemical or physical substance emitted into the air that the Secretary may reasonably anticipate to cause or contribute to climate change.” This definition does not explicitly state whether “greenhouse gases” is an aggregate pollutant consisting of six (or more) components, cf. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i), or six (or more) individual gases. However, elsewhere in Vermont's regulations, “greenhouse gases” is referred to in a manner suggesting the aggregate interpretation. See, e.g., Section 5-101 (definition of “Major Stationary Source”) (referring to “the air contaminant that is greenhouse gases”). Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret the definition of “greenhouse gases” in Section 5-101 as an aggregate pollutant.
        Second, Vermont incorporates by reference EPA's definition of “subject to regulation” at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48).12
           This definition provides that the pollutant “greenhouse gases” is subject to regulation if “both a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in (a)(7)(iv) of this section) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(23) of this section) occur.” 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(iii). This, in turn, incorporates two different elements of the federal PSD regulation: emissions increase calculation, and emissions increase netting. For non-greenhouse gas pollutants, Vermont uses a different emissions increase calculation methodology, and does not allow for netting. However, EPA understands that Vermont intends for its greenhouse gas permitting requirements to match the federal requirements, and consequently EPA is proposing to interpret Vermont's definition of “subject to regulation” as including the calculation methodology specified in the federal regulations. See also VT DEC's Jan. 3, 2011 response to comments; response No. 2 (emphasizing VT DEC's “intent to have the same (and not more stringent) permitting thresholds for greenhouse gases in Vermont as required by federal regulations”), and response No. 8 (“The [VT DEC] intends for the federal netting and baseline calculation procedures to apply for applicability of permitting greenhouse gases.”). Thus, for example, an existing Vermont source, in determining whether a proposed modification's greenhouse gas emissions would be “subject to regulation,” would be permitted to use the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test of 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c), and to incorporate creditable and contemporaneous reductions in actual emissions in calculating the “net emissions increase.”

            12 The Vermont regulation actually refers to “40 CFR 51.166(48)(b)” [sic]. See Section 5-101 (definition of “Subject to Regulation”). We assume this is a clerical error and was intended to refer to § 51.166(b)(48).

        Third, in light of the preceding two proposed interpretations, it is possible that an ambiguity may arise if Vermont adds a new component gas to its state-defined “greenhouse gases” pollutant but that component gas is not part of the federal “greenhouse gases” definition at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i). In this situation, it may not be clear in any given context whether “greenhouse gases” in Vermont's regulations refers to “greenhouse gases” as defined by EPA or as defined by Vermont. This could be relevant if, for example, an existing source sought to take credit for reductions in a state-only gas when calculating its net emissions increase of greenhouse gases. Since Vermont's definition of “subject to regulation” in Section 5-101 includes all of 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48), it must therefore include the federal definition of “greenhouse gases” at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i). Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret “greenhouse gases” in Vermont's regulations as meaning greenhouse gases as defined by 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(i) for purposes of the “subject to regulation” definition and any reference elsewhere in Vermont's regulations that specifically references the “subject to regulation” definition, but as meaning greenhouse gases as defined by Section 5-101 for all other purposes in Vermont's SIP.

        Finally, as noted above, the Vermont regulation in several places incorporates federal regulations by reference. See, e.g., Section 5-101 (definition of “Major Stationary Source”) (referring to “the thresholds in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)”). However, these references do not specify whether the incorporation by reference is intended to be prospective (i.e., to incorporate the federal regulation as it may be amended from time to time, without need for revising the state regulation to accommodate federal regulatory revisions) or fixed. We propose to interpret each incorporation by reference of a federal regulation as referring to the date of adoption of the Vermont regulation, i.e., January 24, 2011.

        B. Other Revisions Adopted by Vermont

        Vermont submitted other amendments to its SIP which EPA is not acting on at this time. These amendments include Sections 5-101 (changes to the definitions of Emergency use engine, Federal Land Manager, and Public Notice), 5-251 (NOX limits), 5-252 (SO2 limits), 5-401(1-15, 17, and 18) (Classification of Air Contaminant Sources), 5-402 (Written Reports When Requested), 5-404 (Methods of Sampling and Testing of Sources), 5-406 (Required Air Modeling), 5-501 (Review of Construction or Modification of Air Contaminant Sources), and 5-502 (Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications).
        IV. Proposed Action
        Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's February 14, 2011 SIP revision, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, Vermont's February 14, 2011 SIP revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.
        If EPA does approve Vermont's changes to its air quality regulations to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG permitting applicability into Vermont's SIP, then Section 52.2372(b) of 40 CFR part 52, as included in EPA's SIP Narrowing Rule—which codifies EPA's limiting its approval of Vermont's PSD SIP to not cover the applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds—is no longer necessary. In today's proposed action, EPA is also proposing to amend Section 52.2372(b) of 40 CFR part 52 to remove this unnecessary regulatory language.
        V. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, this rule 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

          Dated: August 2, 2012.
          H. Curtis Spalding,
          Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

      [FR Doc. 2012-20140 Filed 8-15-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [Docket Number USCG-2012-1062]
        RIN 1625-AA00
        Safety Zone, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Oak Island, NC

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to extend the temporary safety zone established on the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Oak Island, North Carolina. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of mariners on navigable waters during maintenance on the NC 133 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 311.8, at Oak Island, North Carolina. The safety zone extension will temporarily restrict vessel movement within the designated area starting on February 14, 2013 through June 15, 2013.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 7, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
          (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
          (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

          See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions on this rule, call or email CWO4 Joseph M. Edge, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina; telephone 252-247-4525, email Joseph.M.Edge@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Acronyms

          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          FR Federal Register

          NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

        A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

        We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.
        1. Submitting Comments

        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2012-1062) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.
        If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2; by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.
        2. Viewing Comments and Documents

        To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2012-1062) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
        3. Privacy Act

        Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
        4. Public Meeting

        We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
        B. Regulatory History and Information
        We note that this NPRM proposes an extension of an existing safety zone. This zone was originally established from September 12 through December 12, 2012 (See “Safety Zone, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Oak Island, NC,” 77 FR 44466, July 30, 2012). It was subsequently extended through February 14, 2013 (See 77 FR 64720, October 23, 2012).
        C. Basis and Purpose
        North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded a contract to Marine Contracting Corporation of Virginia Beach, Virginia to perform bridge maintenance on the NC 133 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 311.8, at Oak Island, North Carolina. The contract provides for replacing the fender system to commence on September 12, 2012 with a completion date of December 12, 2012. The contractor was granted an extension by North Carolina Department of Transportation until February 14, 2013. Due to the presence of rock on the sea bed, which will impact construction progress, NCDOT has granted an additional extension until June 15, 2013 to complete the bridge maintenance. The contractor will utilize a 140 foot deck barge with a 40 foot beam as a work platform and for equipment staging.
        D. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The proposed temporary safety zone will encompass the waters directly under the NC 133 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 311.8, at Oak Island, North Carolina (33°55′18″ N/078°04′22″ W). All vessels transiting this section of the waterway requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet will be required to make a one hour advanced notification to the work supervisor at the NC 133 Fixed Bridge while the safety zone is in effect. The initial safety zone is currently in effect until February 14, 2013. Here, the additional proposed extension will extend the end date from 8 p.m. February 14, 2013 to 8 p.m. June 15, 2013.
        This safety zone will provide a safety buffer to transiting vessels as bridge repairs present potential hazards to mariners and property due to reduction of horizontal clearance. During this period the Coast Guard will require a one hour notification to the work supervisor at the NC 133 Fixed Bridge at the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway crossing, mile 311.8, Oak Island, North Carolina. The notification requirement will apply during the maintenance period for vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet.
        E. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
        1. Regulatory Planning and Review
        This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule does not restrict traffic from transiting through the noted portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; it only imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet.
        2. Impact on Small Entities
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 8 p.m. February 14, 2013 through 8 p.m. June 15, 2103.

        This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the safety zone will apply to the entire width of this section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage by providing a one hour advanced notification. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to the users of the waterway. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
          ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
        3. Assistance for Small Entities

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        4. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        5. Federalism
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
        6. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.
        7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        8. Taking of Private Property
        This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        9. Civil Justice Reform
        This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
        10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
        11. Indian Tribal Governments
        This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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.
        12. Energy Effects
        This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
        13. Technical Standards
        This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
        14. Environment

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
          Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

          PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
          1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

          2. Add temporary § 165.T05-1062 to read as follows:

            § 165.T05-1062
            Safety Zone; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Oak Island, NC.
            (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: This zone includes the waters directly under and 100 yards either side of the NC 133 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 311.8, at Oak Island, North Carolina (33°55′18″ N/078°04′22″ W).
            (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33 CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section, § 165.T05-1062. In addition the following regulations apply:

            (1) All vessels requiring greater than 50 feet horizontal clearance to safely transit through the NC 133 Fixed Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 311.8, at Oak Island, North Carolina must contact the work supervisor on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16 one hour in advance of intended transit.
            (2) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16.
            (3) The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:
            (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and
            (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
            (c) Definitions.
            (1) Captain of the Port North Carolina means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
            (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port North Carolina to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
            (3) Work Supervisor means the contractors on site
            representative.
            (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
            (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from through 8 p.m. February 14, 2013 through 8 p.m. June 15, 2013, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

            Dated: December 7, 2012.
            A. Popiel,
            Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector North Carolina.

      [FR Doc. 2012-30755 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 300 and 679
        [Docket No. 101027534-3546-01]
        RIN 0648-BA37
        Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sport and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska; Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS is extending the date by which public comments are due concerning proposed regulations to implement a catch sharing plan for the guided sport and commercial fisheries for Pacific halibut in waters of International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). NMFS published the proposed rule on June 28, 2013, and announced that the public comment period would end on August 12, 2013. With this notice, NMFS is extending the comment period to August 26, 2013, to provide additional time for stakeholders and other members of the public to submit comments.

          DATES:
          The public comment period for the proposed rule published at 78 FR 39122, June 28, 2013, is extended from August 12, 2013, until August 26, 2013. Comments must be received no later than August 26, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2011-0180, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011-0180, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        On June 28, 2013, NMFS published a proposed rule at 78 FR 39122, that would implement a catch sharing plan for the guided sport and commercial fisheries for Pacific halibut in waters of IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). The proposed catch sharing plan will change the annual process of allocating halibut between the guided sport and commercial fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, establish allocations for each sector, and specify a method for setting harvest restrictions for guided sport anglers that are intended to limit harvest to the annual guided sport fishery catch limit. The proposed catch sharing plan also will authorize annual transfers of commercial halibut quota to charter halibut permit holders for harvest in the guided sport fishery.
        Public Comment Extension
        NMFS is extending the public comment period until August 26, 2013. NMFS received several requests to extend the comment period on the proposed rule due to overlap with the recreational halibut fishing season and the complexity of the proposed catch sharing plan. Most commenters requested a 45-day extension. We have considered these comments and conclude that a 14-day extension should allow sufficient time for the public to review and comment on the proposed rule without significantly delaying the rulemaking process.

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: July 22, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator  for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-17905 Filed 7-24-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH61
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period and Notice of Availability of the Draft Economic Analysis for Proposed Critical Habitat for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis). We are also providing notice of the reopening of the comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for the bay checkerspot butterfly to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this reopened comment period and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until March 12, 2001. In addition, we are planning on holding one public information meeting during this time. Refer to the Public Information Meeting section for the date, time, and location of this meeting.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments and information should be submitted to Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825. For electronic mail address and further instructions on commenting, refer to Public Comments Solicited section of this notice.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For general information, contact David Wright, Stephanie Brady or Patricia Foulk, at the above address (telephone 916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6710).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) is a medium-sized butterfly with a wing span of about 5 centimeters (2 inches). The forewings have black bands along all the veins on the upper wing surface, contrasting sharply with bright red, yellow and white spots. The species occurs in San Francisco Bay area counties, notably the counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara. For a detailed description of this species, see the Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area (FWS 1998) and references within that plan.
        Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), the bay checkerspot butterfly was listed as a threatened species on September 18, 1987 (52 FR 35366). Residential and commercial development, invasive non-native plants, and air pollution threaten the bay checkerspot butterfly.

        On June 30, 1999, the Center for Biological Diversity, filed a complaint against us challenging our critical habitat findings for seven species, including the bay checkerspot. On August 30, 2000, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Bruce Babbit. et al., CIV 99-3202) ruled on several of the species involved, including the bay checkerspot. The court ordered us to propose critical habitat within 60 days of the ruling and to finalize the designation within 120 days of the proposed designation. A subsequent settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity extended the date for the final rule to April 20, 2001.
        On October 16, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 61218) a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the bay checkerspot butterfly. The original comment period closed on December 15, 2000.
        We have proposed to designate 15 critical habitat areas totaling approximately 10,600 hectares (ha) (26,180 acres(ac)) in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties of California. The areas range in size from 179 ha (443 ac) to approximately 2,855 ha (7,055 ac).

        Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, and may exclude areas from designation after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based upon the previously published proposal to designate critical habitat for the bay checkerspot butterfly, and comments received during the previous comment periods, we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. The draft economic analysis is available at the Internet and mailing addresses in the Public Comments Solicited section below.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We will accept written comments and information during this re-opened comment period. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any of several methods:
        (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825.
        (2) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: fw1baycheckerspot@fws.gov. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AH61”' and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at telephone number 919/414-6600.
        (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given above or at the public information meeting (see Public Information Meeting section below).
        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address under (1) above. Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at “www.r1.fws.gov” or by writing to the Field Supervisor at the address under (1) above.
        Public Information Meeting
        We have scheduled one public information meeting. This meeting will be held on February 22, 2001, from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m., at the Hyatt Sainte Claire, 302 South Market Street, San Jose, California. You may hand-deliver written comments at this meeting.
        Author(s)

        The primary authors of this notice are Stephanie Brady (see ADDRESSES section), and Christine Mullen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: February 5, 2001.
          Elizabeth H. Stevens,
          Acting Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-3345 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P