Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69217 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Virginia SIP revision adding Chapter 

45—Consumer and Commercial 

Products that consists of new and 

revised standards for the control of 

VOCs from portable fuel containers, 

consumer products, architectural and 

industrial coatings, adhesives and 

sealants, and asphalt paving operations 

in the Northern Virginia and 

Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control 

Areas. EPA is also proposing to approve 

the Virginia SIP revision that includes 

new and revised documents 

incorporated by reference into the 

Virginia regulations (9VAC5–20–21— 

Documents Incorporated by Reference). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve 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 CAA; 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 proposed rule, 

pertaining to Virginia’s control of VOCs 

from commercial and consumer 

products 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, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 25, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28644 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0636; FRL–9488–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of Utah; 

Smoke Management Requirements for 

Mandatory Class I Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision package submitted by the State 

of Utah on September 29, 2011. The 

September 29, 2011 revision establishes 

rule R307–204 of the Utah 

Administrative Code (UAC). R307–204 

contains smoke management 

requirements for land managers within 

the State of Utah as required by 

regulations for regional haze. The 

September 29, 2011 submittal 

supersedes and replaces R307–204 

submitted as part of the State’s 

December 12, 2003 Regional Haze (RH) 

SIP. The September 29, 2011 submittal 

also supersedes and replaces the State’s 

May 8, 2006 submittal of R307–204. 

EPA is also proposing to partially 

approve a SIP revision submitted by the 

State of Utah on May 26, 2011. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve section XX.G of the State’s RH 

SIP which contains the State’s long-term 

strategy for fire programs as required by 

the regulations. The May 26, 2011 

submittal supersedes and replaces SIP 

revisions to section XX.G of the RH SIP 

submitted by the State on December 12, 

2003 and September 9, 2008. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0636, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: dygowski.laurel@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, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

69218 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8 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–2011– 

0636. 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 

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, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

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 a.m. to 

4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6144, 

dygowski.laurel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words Utah and State mean 

the State of Utah. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Background 

A. Introduction to the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Development of the Requirements for 40 

CFR 51.309 

III. What are the requirements for RH SIPs 

submitted under 40 CFR 51.309? 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Submittals 

A. Background of Submittals 

B. Requirements Under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6) 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

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. Introduction to the Regional Haze 

Rule 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter which impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69219 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

3Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

4The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid 

tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona, 

northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado. The 

16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand 

Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, 

Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon 

Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park Wilderness, Flat 4Tops Wilderness, Maroon 

Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, 

Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San 

Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National Park, 

Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National 

Park, Capital Reef National Park, and Zion National 

Park. 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 1 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. (64 FR 35715). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 2 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), the regional haze rule 

(RHR). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

the regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.3 40 

CFR 51.308(b) and 40 CFR 51.309(c) 

required states to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various federal agencies established 

to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the western United 

States. WRAP member State 

governments include: Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming. Tribal members include 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi 

Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand 

Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, 

Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San 

Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of 

Fort Hall. 

D. Development of the Requirements for 

40 CFR 51.309 

EPA’s RHR provides two paths to 

address regional haze. One is 40 CFR 

51.308 (Section 308), and requires states 

to perform source by source BART 

determinations and evaluate the need 

for other control strategy development. 

These strategies must be shown to make 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ in improving 

visibility in Class I areas inside the state 

and in neighboring jurisdictions. The 

other path states may take to address 

regional haze is 40 CFR 51.309 (Section 

309), and is an option for nine states 

termed the ‘‘transport region states’’ 

which includes: Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, and the 

211 Tribes located within those states. 

Section 309 requires states to adopt 

regional haze strategies that are based 

on recommendations from the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 

16 Class I areas in the Colorado Plateau 

area 4. GCVTC recommendations 

included strategies for addressing smoke 

emissions from wildland fires and 

agricultural burning, provisions to 

prevent pollution by encouraging 

renewable energy development, 

provisions regarding clean air corridors, 

mobile sources, and wind-blown dust, 

among other things. The EPA codified 

these recommendations as part of the 

1999 RHR. 

III. What are the requirements for RH 

SIPs submitted under 40 CFR 51.309? 

As discussed above, the GCVTC had 

numerous recommendations for 

protecting the 16 Class I areas of the 

Colorado Plateau that EPA adopted as 

part of the Section 309 RHR. This 

proposed action only addresses the 

requirements pertaining to programs 

related to fire of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6), a state 

must show that its smoke management 

program and all federal or private 

programs for prescribed fire in the state 

have a mechanism in place for 

evaluating and addressing the degree of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

69220 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5The rule was adopted by the Air Quality Board 

(AQB) in November 2003. Amendments to R307– 

204 were adopted by the AQB in April 2006 and 

July 2011. 

6Wildland Fire Use Event means naturally 

ignited wildland fire that is managed to accomplish 

specific pre-stated resource management objectives 

in predefined geographic areas. 

7Large Prescribed Fires are fires that cover 20 

acres or more per burn. Large Prescribed Pile Fires 

are fires that exceed 30,000 cubic feet per day. Large 

Wildland Fire Use Events are those greater than 20 

acres. 

8An Emission Reduction Technique is a 

technique for controlling emissions from prescribed 

fires to minimize the amount of emissions produced 

per unit or acre burned 

9Fire Prescription means the measurable criteria 

that define conditions under which a prescribed fire 

may be ignited, guide selection of appropriate 

management responses, and indicates other 

required actions. Prescription criteria may include 

safety, economic, public health, environmental, 

geographic, administrative, social, or legal 

considerations. 

visibility impairment from smoke in 

their planning and application of 

burning. A state must also ensure that 

its prescribed fire smoke management 

programs have at least the following 

seven elements: actions to minimize 

emissions, evaluation of smoke 

dispersion, alternatives to fire, public 

notification, air quality monitoring, 

surveillance and enforcement, and 

program evaluation. 

States must include in their section 

309 plan a statewide process for 

gathering the essential post-burn 

activity information to support 

emissions inventory and tracking 

systems. States must identify existing 

administrative barriers to the use of 

non-burning alternatives and adopt a 

process for continuing to identify and 

remove administrative barriers where 

feasible. The SIP must include an 

enhanced smoke management program, 

which means the smoke management 

program considers visibility and is 

based on the criteria of efficiency, 

economics, law, emission reduction 

opportunities, land management 

objectives, and reduction of visibility 

impairment. States must also adopt a 

process to establish annual emission 

goals to minimize emission increases 

from fire. 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of the State’s 

Submittals 

A. Background of Submittals 

On December 12, 2003, the State of 

Utah submitted a RH SIP intended to 

meet all of the requirements under 40 

CFR 51.309. This submittal adopted SIP 

section XX-Regional Haze as well as 

UAC R–307–204 Emissions Standards: 

Smoke Management. The State revised 

the smoke management requirements of 

R307–204 in a May 8, 2006 submittal 

and then again in its September 29, 

2011 submittal. The September 29, 2011 

submittal supersedes and replaces the 

R307–204 portion of the December 12, 

2003 submittal and all of the May 8, 

2006 submittal. R307–204 contains 

provisions necessary to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6) 

which pertain to smoke management. 

Section XX.G—Long-Term Strategy 

for Fire Programs of the State’s RH SIP 

also contains provisions necessary to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6). The State originally 

submitted Section XX.G with its 

December 12, 2003 RH SIP submittal. 

The State resubmitted this section with 

subsequent SIP revisions on September 

9, 2008 and May 26, 2011. Section XX.G 

of the May 26, 2011 submittal 

supersedes and replaces Section XX.G 

of the December 12, 2003 and 

September 9, 2008 submittals. 

EPA will be taking action on the 

remainder of the December 12, 2003, 

September 9, 2008, and May 26, 2011 

submittals at a later date. 

B. Requirements Under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6) 

1. Evaluation of Current Fire Programs 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), 

the State of Utah has evaluated all 

federal, state, and private prescribed fire 

programs in the State. The State based 

the evaluation on the potential of the 

programs to contribute to visibility 

impairment in the 16 mandatory Class 

I areas of the Colorado Plateau and how 

visibility protection from smoke is 

addressed in planning and operation of 

the programs. The State relied upon the 

WRAP report Assessing Status of 

Incorporating Smoke Effects into Fire 

Planning and Operation (found in 

section G of the Utah Technical Support 

Document (TSD)) as a guide for making 

this evaluation. The State of Utah also 

evaluated whether these prescribed fire 

programs contain the following 

elements: actions to minimize 

emissions; evaluation of smoke 

dispersion; alternatives to fire; public 

notification; air quality monitoring; 

surveillance and enforcement; and 

program evaluation. 

Based on this evaluation, the State 

adopted R307–204 5. The State also 

adopted the Utah Enhanced Smoke 

Management Plan (ESMP) (found in 

Section G of the Utah TSD). The ESMP 

serves as a guide for land managers to 

implement the requirements of R307– 

204. The following discusses how 

R307–204, in conjunction with the 

ESMP, meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6)(i). The following 

requirements apply to large wildland 

fire use events 6, large prescribed fires 

and large pile burns occurring on 

wildlands 7. R307–204 does not apply to 

agricultural burning as discussed later 

in this preamble. 

a. Actions to Minimize Fire Emissions 

R307–204 has two requirements 

directed at minimizing fire emissions: 

use of emission reduction techniques 8

by land managers and the establishment 

by the State of annual emission goals for 

fire. Land managers must utilize 

emission reduction techniques as 

appropriate to minimize fire emissions 

and provide the State documentation of 

the techniques used. The State will 

establish an annual emission goal prior 

to the beginning of the fire season with 

the intention of minimizing emission 

increases from fire. The State will 

establish the annual emission goal in 

cooperation with other states, federal 

land management agencies, and private 

entities. To establish the goal, the State 

will determine if there are feasible 

emission reduction techniques for 

upcoming prescribed fire projects and 

will quantify the benefit from using the 

techniques. 

b. Evaluation of Smoke Dispersion 

R307–204 requires land managers to 

submit burn plan information for 

approval from the executive secretary 

prior to ignition of any large burn in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii). 

The pre-burn information must identify 

any sensitive receptor, including any 

Class I or non-attainment area within 15 

miles, distance and direction of the 

sensitive receptor in degrees from the 

project site, and a map that shows the 

daytime and nighttime smoke path and 

down-drainage flow for a minimum of 

15 miles from the burn site. This 

information, in addition to the fire 

prescription 9 that is submitted as part 

of the burn plan prepared by the land 

manager, provides field level data that 

is essential for determining the 

dispersion of smoke from a fire and 

what areas it may potentially impact. 

Land managers are also required by 

R307–204 to use smoke or visibility 

modeling to predict the impacts of the 

fire. 

c. Alternatives to Fire 

Pursuant to R307–204–4(4), beginning 

in 2004 and annually thereafter, each 

land manager is required to submit to 

the executive secretary a list of areas 

treated using non-burning alternatives 

to fire during the previous calendar 

year, including the number of acres, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69221 

specific types of alternatives used, and 

the location of these areas. 

d. Public Notification of Burning 

Utah provides public information on 

current burning on a Web site at 

http://www.utahfireinfo.gov. In 

addition, land managers must include 

public notification procedures in their 

burn plan required by R307–204. 

e. Air Quality Monitoring 

Pursuant to R307–204, land managers 

shall monitor the effects of the 

prescribed fire on smoke sensitive 

receptors and on visibility in Class I 

areas. The method of monitoring, either 

visual or with instrumentation, is 

specified as part of the burn plan. 

f. Surveillance and Enforcement 

State staff conduct site inspections on 

prescribed fires that are close to Class I 

areas to verify compliance with the burn 

plan on an as-needed basis. The State 

generates reports after the inspection 

with the results of that inspection. 

g. Program Evaluation 

The State in conjunction with land 

managers will conduct an annual 

effectiveness review of the smoke 

management programs in the State. A 

formal progress report will be 

completed every five years as required 

by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii). 

h. Agricultural Fire 

The WRAP emission inventory shows 

that agricultural burning is a very small 

portion of total emissions in Utah. 

According to the WRAP inventory, Utah 

agriculture burning accounts for only 

.25% of Utah’s total emissions of PM, 

PM2.5, SO2, NOX, VOC, and carbon 

monoxide. Utah’s agriculture emissions 

comprise approximately three-quarters 

of a percent to one percent of the WRAP 

region emissions for agriculture burning 

for the same pollutants as those listed 

above. The State has concluded from 

this information that agricultural 

burning does not significantly 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. Thus, agricultural land 

managers are not subject to the R307– 

204 or other State requirements for 

smoke management. 

2. Emission Inventory and Tracking 

System 

a. Wildlands Inventory 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii) 

and R307–204, the State maintains a fire 

emissions inventory for volatile organic 

compounds, nitrogen oxides, elemental 

and organic carbon, and fine particulate. 

The fires in the State are tracked in the 

WRAP Fire Emission Tracking System 

(FETS). The FETS is a web-enabled 

database for planned and unplanned fire 

events. The FETS is a planning tool for 

daily smoke management coordination, 

and retrospective analyses such as 

emission inventories and regional haze 

air quality planning tasks (see http:// 

wrapfets.org). 

b. Agricultural Lands Inventory 

To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6)(ii), the State will work 

collaboratively with the Utah Farm 

Bureau Federation and Utah State 

University Extension to develop and 

implement an inventory and emissions 

tracking system for agricultural burning. 

A survey conducted in 2003 by the Utah 

State University Extension, in 

collaboration with the Utah Farm 

Bureau Federation, will be used by the 

State as a baseline for future emissions 

tracking activities. The State will 

conduct emission tracking activities on 

a periodic basis to determine if any 

significant changes have been made 

since the 2003 survey. Results from the 

periodic emission tracking activities 

will be provided in future progress 

reports to EPA required by 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10). 

3. Identification and Removal of 

Administrative Barriers 

The State and land managers for fire 

will annually assess whether 

administrative barriers to the use of 

non-burning alternatives exist. If a 

specific administrative barrier is 

identified as a result of this annual 

evaluation, the State will investigate 

how this barrier may be removed, if 

feasible, and will work collaboratively 

with land managers to remove the 

barrier as required by 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6)(iii). An evaluation of the 

administrative barriers to the use of the 

non-burning alternatives, if any, will be 

included in the formal progress report to 

EPA every five years as required by 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(10). 

4. Enhanced Smoke Management 

Program 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), 

the State has determined that all smoke 

management programs that operate 

within Utah are consistent with the 

WRAP Enhanced Smoke Management 

Programs for Visibility Policy (see 

Section G of the Utah TSD for a 

complete copy of this policy). This 

policy calls for programs to be based on 

the criteria of efficiency, economics, 

law, emission reduction opportunities, 

land management objectives, and 

reduction of visibility impacts. 

5. Annual Emission Goals 

R307–204 requires the State to 

establish annual emission goals in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v). 

Pursuant to the State’s ESMP, the 

annual emission goals will seek to 

minimize emission increases in fire, 

excluding wildfire, to the maximum 

extent feasible. 

Based on our analysis and evaluation 

of section XX.G of the Utah May 26, 

2011 SIP submittal and R307–204 of the 

September 29, 2011 submittal, EPA 

concludes that the State has met all of 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve a SIP 

revision submitted by the State of Utah 

on September 29, 2011. The September 

29, 2011 revision establishes rule R307– 

204 of the Utah Administrative Code 

(UAC). R307–204 contains smoke 

management requirements for land 

managers within the State of Utah as 

required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6) for 

regional haze. The September 29, 2011 

submittal supersedes and replaces 

R307–204 submitted as part of the 

State’s December 12, 2003 regional haze 

SIP. The September 29, 2011 submittal 

also supersedes and replaces the State’s 

May 8, 2006 submittal of R307–204. 

EPA is also proposing to partially 

approve a SIP revision submitted by the 

State of Utah on May 26, 2011. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve section XX.G of the State’s 

Regional Haze (RH) SIP which contains 

the State’s long-term strategy for fire 

programs as required by 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(6). The May 26, 2011 

submittal supersedes and replaces SIP 

revisions to section XX.G of the RH SIP 

submitted by the State on December 12, 

2003 and September 9, 2008. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet Federal requirements; 

this proposed action 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

69222 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 CAA; 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: October 28, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28896 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 11–167; RM–11642; DA 11– 

1711] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Altamont, OR 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document sets forth a 

proposal to amend the FM Table of 

Allotments. The Commission requests 

comment on a petition filed by 

Threshold Communications, proposing 

to amend the Table of Allotments by 

substituting Channel 235C1 for vacant 

Channel 249C1, at Altamont, Oregon. 

The proposal is part of a contingently 

filed ‘‘hybrid’’ application and rule 

making petition. Channel 235C1 can be 

allotted at Altamont in compliance with 

the Commission’s minimum distance 

separation requirements with a site 

restriction of 32.3 km (20.1 miles) east 

of Altamont, at 42–07–04 North Latitude 

and 121–21–50 West Longitude. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION infra. 

DATES: The deadline for filing comments 

is December 5, 2011. Reply comments 

must be filed on or before December 20, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve counsel 

for petitioner as follows: Donald E. 

Martin, Esq., Donald E. Martin, P.C., 

Post Office Box 8433, Falls Church, 

Virginia 22041. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202) 

418–7072. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

11–167, adopted October 12, 2011, and 

released October 14, 2011. The full text 

of this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC 

Reference Information Center (Room 

CY–A257), 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this decision may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378–3160, 

or via the company’s Web site, http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com. This document does 

not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506 (c)(4). 

The Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Nazifa Sawez, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division,Media 

Bureau. 

Rule Changes 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 

and 339. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Oregon, is amended 

by deleting 249C1 and adding 235C1 at 

Altamont. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28790 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 04–219, RM–10986, DA 11– 

1687] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Evergreen, AL, and Shalimar, FL 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Dismissal. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS