### 23527 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules

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 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 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 F43255, 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 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, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April 8, 2013. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013–09314 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0194; FRL– 9804–7]**

**Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County**  **Area**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County Area portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter (PM 10 ) emissions from fugitive dust sources. We are approving local statutes that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

**DATES :**  Any comments must arrive by May 20, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2013–0194, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.

Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Robert Marinaro, (415) 972–3019, marinaro.robert@epa.gov or Nancy Levin, (415) 972–3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov, EPA Region IX,

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What statutes did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these

statutes? C. What is the purpose of the submitted

statutes? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating these statutes? B. Do the statutes meet the evaluation

criteria? C. EPA Recommendations To Further

Improve the Statutes D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What statutes did the State submit?

Table 1 lists the statutes addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).


### 23528 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules

T ABLE 

### 1—S UBMITTED 

### S TATUTES

Local agency Statute No. Statute title Adopted Submitted

ADEQ ............... 9–500.04 .......... Air Quality Control; Definitions .......................................................... ........ 07/02/07 05/25/12 ADEQ ............... 11–877 ............. Air Quality Control Measures ............................................................. ....... 07/02/07 05/25/12ADEQ ............... 49–457.01 ........ Leaf Blower Use Restrictions and Training; Leaf Blower Equipment Sellers; Informational Material; Outreach; Applicability. 07/02/07 05/25/12

ADEQ ............... 49–474.01 ........ Additional Board Duties in Vehicle Emissions Control Areas; Definitions 07/02/07 05/25/12 ADEQ ............... ADEQ ............... 49–474.05 ........ 49–474.06 ........ Dust Control; Training; Site Coordinators ................................................. Dust Control; Subcontractor Registration; Fee ......................................... 07/02/07 07/02/07 05/25/12 05/25/12

On July 20, 2012 EPA determined that the submittal for Maricopa County, Statutes: 9–500.04, 11–877, 49–457.01, 49–474.01, 49–474.05, and 49–474.06 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of these statutes?

There are no previous versions of statutes 9–500.04, 11–877, 49–457.01, 49–474.01, 49–474.05, and 49–474.06 in the SIP, although ADEQ adopted these statutes on July 2, 2007. ADEQ submitted them to us on December 21, 2007; however, they were consequently withdrawn on January 25, 2011 and then resubmitted on May 25, 2012. C. What is the purpose of the submitted statutes?

PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM emissions.

Statute 9–500.04 requires municipalities to stabilize certain unpaved roads, alleys, and unpaved shoulders. Additionally, it requires the stabilization of parking and traffic areas and restricts parking and vehicle use on unpaved or unstabilized vacant lots.

Statute 11–877 mandates counties to develop, implement, and enforce air quality control measures that prohibit any person from operating leaf blowers on any high pollution advisory day except while in vacuum mode.

Statute 49–457.01 prohibits the use of leaf blowers to blow landscape debris into public roadways and limits their use to stabilized surfaces. It also mandates the County to produce and distribute materials to educate operators for the purpose of minimizing entrained dust.

Statute 49–474.01 requires counties, densely populated areas, and serious nonattainment areas to stabilize certain unpaved roads, parking, and traffic areas. Additionally, it restricts parking and vehicle use on unpaved or unstabilized vacant lots and requires certified street sweepers.

Statute 49–474.05 requires counties, densely populated areas, and serious nonattainment areas to have an air pollution control officer (APCO) to develop and implement training programs. Additionally, it requires an on-site dust control coordinator who has full authority to ensure implementation of dust control measures.

Statute 49–474.06 requires subcontractors in counties, densely populated areas, and serious nonattainment areas engaging in dust generation operations to register with the APCO. The APCO may also establish registration fees.

EPA’s technical support documents (TSD) have more information about these statutes.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the statutes?

Generally, SIP measures must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193).

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability consistently include the following:

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24,
1987 Federal Register Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register

.

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

3. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). 5. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA 452/R–93–008, April 1993.

6. State of Arizona Senate Bill 1552, Adopted July 2, 2007.

7. A Report of the California Legislature on the Potential Health and Environmental Impacts of Leaf Blowers, California Air resources Board, February 2000.

B. Do the statutes meet the evaluation criteria?

We believe these statutes are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Statutes

The TSDs describe additional revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the statutes but are not currently the basis for rule disapproval. This is particularly the case with the leaf blower statutes: 11–877 and 49–457.01.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

Because EPA believes the submitted statutes fulfill all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these statutes into the federally enforceable SIP. III. 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 proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements


### 23529 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 76 / Friday, April 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules

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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April 9, 2013. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013–09288 Filed 4–18–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS**  **COMMISSION**

**47 CFR Part 90**

**[PS Docket Nos. 13–87, 06–229; WT Docket No. 96–86; RM–11433, RM–11577; FCC 13–**  **40]**

**Service Rules Governing Public Safety Narrowband Operations in the 769–**  **775/799–805 MHz Bands**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Communications Commission.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking.

**SUMMARY :**  This document seeks comment on proposals to amend the Commission’s rules to promote spectrum efficiency, interoperability, and flexibility in 700 MHz public safety narrowband operations (769–775/799– 805 MHz). By this action, the Commission affords interested parties an opportunity to submit comments on these proposed rule changes.

**DATES :**  Comments are due on or before June 18, 2013 and reply comments are due on or before July 18, 2013.

**ADDRESS :**  You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 13–87, by any of the following methods:

• Federal Communications Commission’s Web site: http:// fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section of this document.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Brian Marenco, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418–0838.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This is a summary of the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 13–40, released on April 1, 2013. The document is available for download at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs

_ public/

. The complete text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY).

1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS Docket No. 13–87, the Commission initiates a new proceeding to seek comment on proposals to amend the Commission’s rules governing 700 MHz public safety narrowband operations (769–775/799– 805 MHz). The Commission seeks comment on whether to extend or eliminate the December 31, 2016 narrowbanding deadline for 700 MHz public safety narrowband licensees to transition from 12.5 kilohertz to 6.25 kilohertz channel bandwidth technology.

2. The Commission also seeks comment on a proposal from the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) to authorize secondary use of certain channels in the 700 MHz band for public safety aircraft voice operations. Furthermore, the Commission seeks comment on additional NPSTC proposals to modify the rules governing use of the designated nationwide interoperability channels, data-only interoperability channels, reserve channels, and low power channels.

3. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on a number of other issues, including adjacent channel power (ACP) limits for signal boosters, harmonizing power limits, certifying Project 25 equipment and establishing a standardized Network Access Code (NAC) for operation on 700 MHz interoperability channels.

4. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to the NPRM should refer to PS Docket No. 13–87. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ cgb/ecfs . Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for